THE  LIBRARY 

OF 

THE  UNIVERSITY 

OF  CALIFORNIA 

RIVERSIDE 


THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE 
STAGE  IN  LONDON 


THE  STRUGGLE 

FOR  A  FREE  STAGE  IN 

LONDON 


WATSON  ^JICHOLSON 
M.A.  (Hakvaed),  Ph.D.  (Yale) 

Instructor  in  English  in  Yale  University 


BOSTON  AND  NEW  YORK 
HOUGHTON,  MIFFLIN  AND  COMPANY 

190G 


rm  6dc 


^- 


COPYRIGHT    1906  BY   WATSON  NICHOLSON 
ALL    RIGHTS    RESERVED 

Published  November  iqob 


PREFACE 

ON  the  22(i  of  August,  1843,  royal  sanction 
was  given  to  the  Theatre  Regulation  Bill, 
depriving  the  two  patent  theatres  —  Drury  Lane 
and  Covent  Garden  —  of  the  monopoly  they  had 
possessed,  for  nearly  two  centuries,  of  playing 
Shakespeare  and  the  national  drama,  and  extend- 
ing the  privilege  to  the  minor,  or  independent, 
theatres  which  had  sprung  up  and  multiplied  in 
London  in  spite  of  the  "  inviolable  rights  "  of 
the  patentees.  The  monopoly  had  been  bolstered 
up  by  special  legislation,  revivals  of  vagrant  acts, 
chicanery,  and  evasions  of  every  sort,  in  the  face 
of  a  growing  public  demand  for  an  unrestricted 
stage  for  the  regular  drama.  The  subject  of  this 
volume  is  the  story  of  the  long  struggle  to  free 
London  of  the  theatrical  monopoly,  a  struggle 
which  began  almost  within  the  lifetime  of  the 
second  Charles  himself,  and  culminated  in  the 
parliamentary  act  of  1843. 


2056025 


vi  PREFACE 

From  the  necessities  of  the  case,  I  have  gone 
to  the  sources  for  my  materials.  The  most  valu- 
able of  these  have  been  the  theatrical  columns 
of  the  London  newspapers  and  magazines  con- 
taining playbills,  stage  criticisms,  police  court 
records,  and  correspondence ;  memoirs,  diaries, 
biographies,  and  letters  ;  copies  of  documents  in 
the  Lord  Chamberlain's  office,  of  theatrical  pat- 
ents and  licenses,  of  proceedings  in  Parliament, 
King's  Bench,  and  Privy  Council ;  pamphlets 
relating  to  the  stage,  contracts  between  mana- 
gers and  actors,  petitions  to  King  and  Parlia- 
ment, minutes  of  meetings,  reports  of  commit- 
tees, etc,  etc. 

As  a  result  of  this  research  among  the  sources, 
naturally,  much  new  material  has  been  un- 
earthed, mistakes  of  former  historians  have  been 
corrected,  and  new  relations  of  well-known  facts 
established.  Even  when  treating  of  epochs  of 
theatrical  history  perfectly  familiar  to  the  stu- 
dent of  the  drama,  it  has  been  my  aim  to  throw 
more  light  on  the  field,  and  to  bring  into  promi- 
nence the  main  significance  of  the  events.  For 
example,  in  the  first  chapter,  the  Union  of  1682, 


PREFACE  vii 

Betterton's  revolt,  the  rise  of  Vaubrugh's  Opera 
House,  the  ejectment  of  Christopher  Rich  from 
Drury  Lane  Theatre,  and  Steele's  contest  with 
the  Crown  over  his  patent,  have  not  only  had 
additional  materials  gathered  to  them,  but  they 
have  all  been  interpreted  in  relation  to  the  mean- 
ing of  monopolistic  rights  and  crown  prerogative 
over  theatrical  amusements. 

Again,  to  single  out  a  few  prominent  topics 
at  random,  the  revolts  of  the  actors  from  the  pat- 
ent theatres  in  1733  and  1743  have  been  placed 
in  the  light  of  new  evidence ;  the  relation  of 
Henry  Fielding  to  the  other  causes  which  brought 
about  the  Licensing  Act  of  1737  has  been  given 
a  coherent  place  in  the  political  and  theatrical 
events  of  the  eighteenth  century  ;  the  story  of 
John  Palmer's  Royalty  Theatre  has  been  given 
a  logical  connection  in  the  struggle  for  a  free 
stage  in  London;  the  so-called  "  O.  P."  riots  of 
1809  have  been  examined  with  a  view  to  their 
real  meaning  in  the  struggle ;  the  development 
of  that  dramatic  hybrid,  known  as  "burletta," 
has  been  traced  from  its  innocent  beginning  to 
its  final  importance  as  a  monopoly  breaker. 


viii  PREFACE 

Among  the  more  general  topics  of  interest  to 
the  student  of  English  dramatic  history  may  be 
mentioned  the  account  of  the  warfare  of  en- 
croachments between  the  summer  and  winter 
theatres,  and  the  importance  of  the  English 
opera  in  this  contest ;  the  attempts  to  establish 
a  third  theatre  in  London  under  the  protection 
of  Grovernment;  the  spirited  struggle  between 
the  majors  and  minors  (^.  e.  patent  and  inde- 
pendent theatres)  ;  the  parts  played  by  dramatic 
authors  and  actors  against  the  monopoly;  the 
various  roles  taken  by  the  different  Lord  Cham- 
berlains ;  and  the  final  downfall  of  the  patent 
houses  as  the  combined  result  of  all  the  influ- 
ences waged  against  them  for  nearly  two  cen- 
turies. 

In  every  instance,  I  believe,  where  the  source 
of  my  authority  for  statements  of  fact  is  not 
apparent  from  the  context,  a  footnote  reference 
will  be  found.  For  the  convenience  of  scholars 
desiring  further  knowledge  of  the  subject  than 
would  be  possible  to  present  in  a  volume  of  lim- 
ited size,  I  have  collected  these  references  in 
an  Appendix.    I  have  in  my  possession  copies  of 


PREFACE  ix 

many  of  the  original  documents  used  in  this 
investigation,  and  these  may  be  published  in 
a  separate  volume,  should  it  appear  advisable,  at 
some  future  time.  While  I  have  included  Wynd- 
ham's  "  Annals  of  Covent  Garden  Theatre  "  in 
my  bibliography,  I  have  not  examined  it,  being 
unable  to  secure  a  copy  before  the  present  work 
was  in  press. 

Relative  to  the  Index,  it  has  been  my  object  to 
furnish  as  complete  analysis  as  possible  for  the 
more  important  lines  of  investigation,  and  to  give 
perspective,  so  to  speak,  to  the  various  topics  com- 
prising the  work.  If  I  have  succeeded  in  this,  a 
mere  glance  at  this  part  of  the  book  should  serve 
to  reveal  the  comparative  importance  to  the  sub- 
ject of  the  various  titles  therein  contained.  This 
method,  it  would  seem,  is  better  calculated  to 
guide  the  reader  to  the  real  contents  of  the  book 
than  a  senseless  repetition  of  the  pages  which 
happen  to  contain  proper  names.  It  should  not 
be  surprising,  therefore,  if  Charles  II,  though 
appearing  scores  of  times  in  the  pages  of  the 
book,  should  be  mentioned  in  the  Index  only 
in  relation  to  some  act  of  importance  connected 


X  PREFACE 

with  his  name.  On  the  other  hand,  the  monopoly 
which  he  created,  forming  one  of  the  main  in- 
terests of  the  investigation,  should  be  found 
exhaustively  analyzed.  For  similar  reasons,  the 
titles  of  farces,  operas,  etc.,  which  bear  but 
slightly  on  the  larger  features  of  the  subject 
have  been  omitted  from  the  Index. 

In  the  way  of  acknowledgments,  my  sincere 
thanks  are  due  the  entire  staff  of  the  Yale  Uni- 
versity Library ;  to  Professor  Henry  A.  Beers, 
who  read  and  criticised  the  first  draft  of  the 
manuscript ;  to  Professors  W.  L.  Cross  and 
W.  L.  Phelps,  both  of  whom  read  and  criticised 
portions  of  the  book  in  manuscript ;  to  Mr.  An- 
drew Keogh,  whose  expert  knowledge  of  biblio- 
graphical materials  saved  me  many  hours  of 
labor ;  to  Professor  George  P.  Baker,  who  read 
critically  the  entire  manuscript ;  and  to  Professor 
Thomas  R.  Lounsbury,  who  first  aroused  my 
interest  in  the  subject,  and  has  been  my  constant 
adviser  and  sympathetic  critic  during  the  prog- 
ress of  the  work. 

Watson  Nicholson. 

New  Haven,  Conn., 
September  7,  1906. 


CONTENTS 


I.  Introductory.  The  Theory  and  Practice 
of  Theatrical  Monopoly  during  the  First 
Half  Century  of  the  Patent  Theatres  .  .  1 
II.  The  Rise  of  the  Haymarket  and  Goodman's 
Fields  Tieatres  ;  and  their  Effect  on  the 
Question  of  Patent  Rights 20 

III.  The  Licensing  Act :  The  Causes  producing 

it,  and  the  Attempts  to  regulate  the  Stage 
before  the  Passage  of  that  Act 46 

IV.  The  Licensing  Act  in  Practice,  1737-1787      .     72 
V.   The  Royalty  Theatre 98 

VI.   A   Summary  of  the  Conflicting   Theatrical 
Legislation  in  England  at  the  Close  of  the 

Eighteenth  Century 124 

VII.    From  the  Rebuilding  of  Covent  Garden  and 
Drury  Lane  to  the  Burning  of  the  Great 

Theatres 141 

VIII.    The  Attempt  to  establish  a  Third  Theatre  ; 

Privy  Council  Proceedings 175 

IX.    The  Attempt  to  establish  a  Third  Theatre  ; 

Proceedings  in  Parliament    ......  225 

X.   The  Rise  of  English  Opera,  and  the  War  of 

Encroachments 247 

XI.    Majors  vs.  Minors .     .     .  281 

XII.   The  Dramatists  vs.  the  Monopoly     ...  323 
XIII.  The  Lord  Chancellor's  Opinion  and  Knowles's 

Petition  for  a  Third  Theatre 356 


xii  CONTENTS 

XIV.    The  End  of  the  Struggle 389 

XV.    Summary  and  Conclusion 421 

Bibliography 435 

Index 461 


THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE 
STAGE  IN  LONDON 


THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE 
STAGE  IN  LONDON 

CHAPTER   I 

INTRODUCTORY 

THE    THEORY    AND    PRACTICE     OF    THEATRICAL 
MONOPOLY    DURING    THE    FIRST    HALF   CEN- 
TURY   OF    THE    PATENT    THEATRES 

OF  all  the  follies  committed  by  Charles  II, 
after  his  restoration  to  the  throne  of  his 
father,  "of  glorious  memory,"  none  seemed 
more  innocent  than  the  creation  of  the  monopoly 
over  the  acted,  national  drama  in  London  and 
Westminster.  And  none,  probably,  was  of  more 
far-reaching  consequences,  either  a.s  to  the  diffi- 
culties involved,  or  the  duration  of  the  contro- 
versies arising  out  of  the  simple,  irresponsible 
act  of  the  King,  when,  on  August  21,  1660,  he 
granted  his  letters  patent  to  Thomas  Killigrew 
and  Sir  William  Davenant,  making  them  the 
sole  guardians  of  theatrical  amusements  in  the 
metropolis.  For  the  monopoly  thus  created  lasted 
until  near  the  middle  of  the  nineteenth  century; 
and  the  train  of  strifes  which  it  entailed  gathered 
in  size  and  momentum  to  the  end  of  the  long 


2   THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

struggle  waged  against  it.  The  causes  alleged 
by  King  Charles  for  this  particular  act  form 
not  only  a  humorous  commentary  in  themselves, 
—  when  we  recall  the  character  of  the  brilliant 
dramas  written  for  the  delectation  of  the  Merrie 
Monarch  and  his  Court, — but  they  also,  inad- 
vertently as  it  were,  contain  the  fulcrum  on 
which,  later,  the  opponents  to  the  monopoly  op- 
erated to  oust  all  patent  rights  connected  with 
the  London  theatres.  In  the  preamble  to  the 
grant  to  Killigrew  and  Davenant  appears  the 
ostensible  raison  d^etre  of  the  theatrical  mono- 
poly created  by  Charles.  "Whereas  wee  are 
given  to  understand,"  so  runs  the  document, 
"  that  certain  persons  in  and  about  our  City  of 
London,  or  the  suburbs  thereof,  doe  frequently 
assemble  for  the  performing  and  acting  of  Playes 
and  Enterludes  for  reevards,  to  which  divers  of 
our  subjects  doe  for  their  entertainment  resort, 
which  said  Playes,  as  wee  are  informed,  doe  con- 
tain e  much  matter  of  prophanation  and  scurril- 
ity, soe  that  such  kinds  of  entertainment,  which, 
if  well  managed,  might  serve  as  morall  instruc- 
tions in  humane  life,  as  the  same  are  now  used 
doe  for  the  most  part  tende  to  the  debauchinge 
of  the  manners  of  such  as  are  present  at  them, 
and  are  very  scandalous  and  offensive  to  all  pious 
and  well-disposed  persons." 

It  is  of  little  import  to  the  later  history  of  the 


INTRODUCTORY  3 

London  stage,  that  the  real  reason  why  Killi- 
grew  was  given  such  great  privileges  was  that  he 
was  "  our  trusty  and  well-beloved,  .  .  .  one  of 
the  Groomes  of  our  Bed-chamber,"  or  that  Sir 
William  Davenant  was  included  in  the  grant  be- 
cause he  had  been  a  stanch  supporter  of  Charles 
I ;  the  essential  facts  are  the  monopoly  itself, 
and  the  purposes  for  which  it  was  created,  as 
recorded  in  the  preamble  just  quoted.  For  al- 
though the  separate  patents  issued  to  Killigrew 
and  Davenant  on  the  l5th  of  January  and  25th 
of  April,  1662,  respectively,  did  not  contain  the 
references  to  "  morall  instructions  in  humane 
life,"  nevertheless,  the  grant  of  1660  has  ever 
been  looked  upon  as  the  origin  of  the  theatrical 
monopoly,  and  its  enemies  constantly  made  use 
of  it  in  after  days  as  a  weapon  against  the  thing 
they  would  destroy. 

But  the  story  of  the  struggle  against  the  the- 
atrical monopoly  in  London,  to  be  understood, 
must  be  followed  in  the  order  of  its  progress. 
And,  although  the  opposition  to  the  monopoly 
began  almost  within  the  second  Charles's  own 
lifetime,  it  should  be  pointed  out  at  once  that  for 
the  first  fifty  years  of  the  history  of  the  Patent 
Theatres  (the  two  built  by  Killigrew  and  Dave- 
nant, and  designated  as  Drury  Lane  and  Covent 
Garden),  there  was  no  concerted  action  against 
the  monopoly,  as  such  ;  for  it  is  doubtful  whether 


4   THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

many  concerned  themselves  about  theatrical 
privileges  at  that  time.  So  long  as  the  theatre- 
going  public  were  supplied  with  sufficient  en- 
tertainment in  kind  and  quantity,  they  cared 
little,  and  knew  less,  about  the  principle  on  which 
that  entertainment  was  founded.  Furthermore, 
private  speculation  (as  understood  to-day)  in 
theatricals  was  a  thing  unknown  in  the  period  of 
the  Restoration,  and  this  was  a  strong  negative 
factor  calculated  to  support  the  monopol3\  How- 
ever, the  practical  operation  of  the  monopoly,  as 
created  by  Charles,  had  its  obstacles  to  contend 
with,  and  these  are  as  truly  episodes  in  the  strug- 
gle for  a  free  stage  in  London,  as  if  they  had 
been  consciously  aimed  at  the  monopoly  itself. 
It  is  my  purpose  in  this  chapter  to  pass  over  in 
review  those  incidents  in  the  first  fifty  years  of 
the  Patent  Theatres,  which  tended  to  weaken  the 
monopoly  and  laid  the  foundation  for  the  later, 
conscious  attacks  upon  it. 

Killigrew's  company  of  actors  at  Drury  Lane 
were  taken  under  the  fostering  care  of  Charles 
himself,  while  the  Duke  of  York  acted  as  patron 
to  Davenant's  theatre.  Both  the  King  and  his 
brother  exercised  an  active  interest  in  the  wel- 
fare of  their  respective  "  servants,"  and,  to  avoid 
friction  between  the  two  theatres,  the  patents 
themselves  provided  that  the  manager  of  neither 
company  should  be  permitted  to  receive  actors 


INTRODUCTORY  5 

from  the  other  house.  To  insure  further  the 
amicable  relations  between  the  two  theatres, 
Gibber  tells  us  in  his  "Apology,"  that  "  no  play- 
acted at  one  house,  should  ever  be  attempted  at 
the  other ; "  to  accomplish  which,  the  plays  of 
the  old  dramatists,  Shakespeare,  Jonson,  etc., 
were  divided  between  the  two  companies.  Under 
such  favoring  conditions,  both  theatres  prospered 
for  some  years  on  equal  terms.  But  as  soon  as 
the  stock  plays  were  exhausted,  this  parity  was 
broken,  the  public  showing  its  preference  for 
the  King's  company,  which  included  the  veteran 
actors  Hart  and  Mohun,  Lacy,  Kynaston,  and 
many  others.  To  counteract  the  disadvantage  in 
which  he  found  himself,  Davenant  had  recourse 
to  music  and  dancing,  expensive  scenes,  ma- 
chines, and  spectacles ;  but  as  soon  as  the  novelty 
of  these  attractions  wore  off,  he  was  left  in  the 
same  situation  as  before. 

Over  at  the  King's  theatre,  too,  a  reaction 
was  going  on :  the  two  greatest  actors  there, 
Hart  and  Mohun,  were  growing  too  old  to  re- 
main longer  on  the  stage,  and  their  exits  were 
sure  to  leave  the  Drury  Lane  Theatre  in  a  crip- 
pled state.  The  success  of  both  companies  being 
thus  decidedly  on  the  wane,  to  save  them,  the 
King,  by  suggestion  or  command,  caused  them 
to  be  merged  into  one  in  1682.  Every  precau- 
tion taken  in  1660  to  avoid  a  destructive  compe- 


G   THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

tition  had  proved  of  little  avail  in  the  face  of 
human  nature  and  practical  affairs.  Relative  to 
the  situation  as  thus  brought  about,  Gibber, 
with  his  usual  critical  acumen,  makes  the  fol- 
lowing summary  conclusion.  It  is  directly  op- 
posed to  the  argument  used  the  next  century  for 
a  free  stage,  but  it  is  none  the  less  applicable  to 
the  conditions  in  1682.  He  says :  "  I  know  that 
it  is  the  common  Opinion,  That  the  more  Play- 
houses, the  more  Emulation ;  I  grant  it ;  but 
what  has  this  Emulation  ended  in?  Why,  a 
daily  Contention  which  shall  soonest  surfeit  you 
with  the  best  Plays ;  so  that  when  what  ought 
to  please,  can  no  longer  please,  your  Appetite, 
is  again  to  be  raised  by  such  monstrous  Pre- 
sentations, as  dishonour  the  Taste  of  a  civiliz'd 
People.  If,  indeed,  to  our  several  Theatres  we 
could  raise  a  proportionable  Number  of  good 
Authors,  to  give  them  all  different  Employment, 
then,  perhaps,  the  Publick  might  profit  from 
their  Emulation :  But  while  good  Writers  are  so 
scarce,  and  undaunted  Criticks  so  plenty,  I  am 
afraid  a  good  Play  and  a  blazing  Star,  will  be 
equal  Rarities." 

The  union  of  1682  is  the  real  beginning  of  the 
theatrical  monopoly  in  practice ;  for  although 
it  had  existed  in  fact  before,  it  was  not  until 
the  patents  were  in  one  hand  that  the  evil  ef- 
fects of  the  monopoly  could  appear.   Then,  for 


INTRODUCTORY  7 

the  first  time,  the  patentees  might  impose  their 
own  terms  on  the  actors.  But  the  combined 
companies  were  scarcely  more  successful  than 
before  the  union ;  for  the  same  causes  which  led 
to  a  falling-off  in  the  audiences  in  the  first  in- 
stance were  still  operative  after  1682.  To  correct 
the  deficit  in  the  treasury,  the  patentees  adopted 
the  foolish  policy  of  reducing  the  salaries  of  their 
leading  actors,  the  mainstays  of  the  theatre,  and 
of  shelving  them  for  the  feeble  reason  of  giving 
young  aspirants  a  chance  in  the  leading  parts.  * 

In  a  wild  endeavor  to  better  the  financial  sit- 
uation of  the  theatre,  shares  were  sold  to  specu- 
lators, who,  knowing  nothing  of  the  dramatic 
and  histrionic  arts,  favored  a  still  further  reduc- 
tion of  salaries.  This  step  was  looked  upon  as 
tyrannous  by  the  actors,  and,  led  by  Betterton, 
Mrs.  Barry,  and  Mrs.  Bracegirdle,  they  revolted 
and  laid  their  grievances  before  the  chief  officer 
of  the  King's  Household,  the  Lord  Chamberlain, 
then  the  Earl  of  Dorset,  who,  in  the  words  of 
the  old  prompter,  John  Downes,  "  Espousing  the 
Cause  of  the  Actors,  with  the  assistance  of  Sir 
Robert  Howard^  finding  their  Complaints  just," 
carried  the  petition  of  the  seceders  to  King 
William.^ 

A  series  of  accidents  greatly  aided  the  cause 

*  Apology,  pp.  152  fF. 

2  John  Downes,  Boscius  Anglicanus,  1st  ed.,  1708,  p.  43. 


8   THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

of  the  revolters.  Before  the  matter  could  be 
fully  investigated  by  the  King,  the  death  of 
Queen  Mary,  on  the  28th  of  December,  1694, 
necessitated  a  postponement  of  action  on  the 
memorial.  Meantime,  public  opinion  gathered 
on  the  side  of  the  actors,  so  that,  early  in  1695, 
when  Betterton  and  his  colleagues  secured  an 
audience  of  his  Majesty,  it  was  not  difficult  to 
convince  him  of  the  justice  of  their  complaint. 
The  legal  questions  involved  were  submitted  to 
the  King's  lawyers,  who  gave  it  as  their  opinion, 
"  that  no  patent  for  acting  plays  given  by  one 
Prince  could  prevent  a  succeeding  one  from 
granting  a  similar  privilege  to  those  with  whom 
he  could  trust  it."  ^  Thereupon,  King  William 
authorized  a  license  to  be  issued  to  Betterton 
and  a  select  number  of  actors  to  erect  a  theatre 
and  establish  a  company  independent  of  the  pa- 
tentees. A  subscription  was  immediately  filled, 
a  theatre  was  constructed  out  of  Gibbon's  Tennis 
Court,  and,  from  its  location,  named  the  "  New 
Theatre  in  Lincoln's  -  Inn  -  Fields."  ^  Another 
circumstance  favorable  to  the  revolters  was  the 
enlistment  of  Congreve  to  the  venture,  who 
brought  with  him  his  new  play.  Love  for  Love^ 
with  which  the  new  house  was  opened  on  the  last 

^  Gibber,  Apology,  p.  157. 

^  Thus  Dowries ;  but  The  Daily  Courant  (e.  g'.  December  28, 
1702)  invariably  speaks  of  this  theatre  as  the  "  New  Theatre  in 
ii»/e-Lincoln's-Inn-Fields." 


INTRODUCTORY  9 

day  of  April,  1695,  and  which  proved  so  success- 
ful that  "  it  took  13  Days  successively."  Downes 
forgets  to  state,  however,  that  Love  for  Love 
had  been  written  for  the  patent  house,  and  that 
on  the  secession  of  the  leading  actors,  for  whom 
the  chief  characters  had  been  written,  Congreve 
had  no  choice,  thus  causing  a  double  blow  to  the 
patentees. 

The  revolt  of  1694-95  forms  the  fu-st  land- 
mark in  the  history  of  resistance  to  the  theatri- 
cal monopoly  created  by  Charles  II.  What  the 
ultimate  effect  of  this  revolt  might  have  been 
on  the  monopoly,  had  the  success  of  Betterton's 
company,  which  started  out  so  auspiciously,  con- 
tinued indefinitely,  is  a  question  which  belongs 
to  the  domain  of  unprofitable  conjecture.  The 
facts  are  that  Betterton  was  too  old  to  manage 
a  theatre  with  vigor ;  democracy  was  rampant 
among  his  performers ;  and  to  hasten  the  dis- 
integrating influences  already  at  work,  Betterton 
fell  a  victim  to  the  public  demand  for  novelty, 
and  imported,  at  enormous  expense,  dancers  and 
singers  decked  out  in  French  furbelows.  It  is 
no  surprise,  therefore,  to  read  that  the  patent 
house  soon  led  in  the' estimation  of  the  public, 
and  that  within  five  or  six  years  after  the  revolt, 

"...  the  peaceful  tattle  of  the  town 
Is  how  to  join  both  houses  into  one."  ^ 

^  Prologue  to  The  Unhappy  Penitent. 


10  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

At  this  juncture  in  the  declining  state  of  the 
new  company,  Sir  John  Vanbrugh  came  forward 
and  offered  to  relieve  Betterton  from  his  diffi- 
culties. Vanbrugh  had  but  recently  completed 
his  fine,  new  Opera  House  in  the  Haymarket, 
and  had  opened  it  with  an  Italian  troupe  on  the 
9th  of  April,  1705.  But  the  foreigners  proved 
a  failure,  and  so  for  both  Vanbrugh  and  Better- 
ton  it  was  an  opportune  time  to  transfer  the 
Lincoln's-Inn-Fields  actors  and  license  to  the 
Opera  House  in  the  Haymarket.  The  building, 
however,  was  too  large  for  the  regular  drama, 
and  within  a  year  from  the  opening,  Vanbrugh 
abdicated,  leaving  his  actors  to  manage  for  them- 
selv^es.  During  the  following  summer  (1706), 
Vanbrugh  succeeded  in  unloading  his  theatrical 
burdens  on  the  shoulders  of  one  Owen  Swiney, 
who,  in  all  probability,  was  acting  merely  as  the 
agent  of  Christopher  Rich.  Rich  had  purchased 
the  theatrical  patents  from  the  Davenant  heirs 
in  1690,  and  this  clandestine  move,  as  proved 
by  events,  was  for  the  purpose  of  once  more 
securing  single  control  of  the  two  companies. 
Wilks,  Johnson,  Mills,  and  Mrs  Oldfield  were 
permitted  to  join  the  company  at  the  Opera 
House,  though  to  outward  appearances  their 
abandonment  of  Drury  Lane  looked  like  a  revolt. 
Foreseeing  the  trend  of  circumstances,  Rich 
availed  himself  of  the  situation,  and,  to  all  in- 


INTRODUCTORY  11 

tents  and  purposes,  the  dramatic  companies  were 
again  united  at  this  time  (October,  1706),  though 
the  fact  was  not  generally  known  until  1708, 
when  the  actors,  in  despair,  left  the  big  house 
in  the  Haymarket  and  returned  to  Drury  Lane. 
It  was  at  this  time  that  the  arrangement  was 
made  between  the  managers,  whereby  the  Opera 
House  was  to  be  appropriated  exclusively  to 
Italian  opera,  the  patent  house  to  waive  all 
claims  to  that  species  of  entertainment. 

By  the  union  of  1708  theatrical  management 
in  London  was  brought  back  to  the  situation  of 
1682,  and,  as  then,  the  monopoly  was  once  more 
complete.  Betterton's  revolt  was  a  failure,  due 
to  the  inherent  weaknesses  of  the  management, 
on  the  one  hand,  and  to  the  tact  and  pertinacity 
of  Rich,  on  the  other.  One  victory,  however,  of 
inestimable  value  had  been  won  against  the  prin- 
ciple of  exclusive  privilege  in  theatrical  manage- 
ment, namely,  that  a  tyrannical  exercise  of  that 
privilege  might  be  successfully  resisted.  And 
this  position  was  supported  by  the  legal  sanction 
of  the  King's  counselors,  a  precedent  better  un- 
derstood and  used  in  later  conflicts  than  could 
have  been  foreseen  in  1694. 

It  was  an  overweening  confidence  in  the  effi- 
cacy of  his  monopoly  that  had  led  Rich  to  op- 
press his  actors  in  1694  ;  and  now,  with  supreme 
power  once  more  in  his  hands  (for  the  original 


12  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

patents  were  presumably  still  in  his  possession), 
he  began  to  assume  his  old-time  arrogance. 
Once  more  he  arbitrarily  reduced  the  salaries  of 
his  players,  and  once  more  they  appealed  to  the 
Lord  Chamberlain  for  redress,  with  the  result 
that  Rich  was  commanded  to  pay  his  actors  in 
full.  This  he  stubbornly  refused  to  do.  Queen 
Anne  at  once  issued  a  silencing  mandate  (June 
6,  1709),  and  ordered  the  Drury  Lane  Theatre 
closed  until  further  instructions.  The  unpaid 
actors  again  resorted  to  the  Opera  House  and 
reengaged  with  Swiney,  who,  it  seems,  after  all, 
had  not  played  into  Rich's  hands.  Just  what 
factors  were  at  work  in  the  present  case  different 
from  those  which  elicited  King  William's  inter- 
ference in  1694-95,  it  is  not  my  purpose  to  in- 
quire into  here.  There  can  be  little  doubt  that 
the  declining  state  of  theatrical  representations 
was  sufficient  cause  for  the  crown  to  bring  pub- 
lic amusements  once  more  within  the  jurisdiction 
of  the  Lord  Chamberlain.  And  it  is  quite  as  cer- 
tain that  political  influences  cooperated  to  work 
Rich's  downfall.  A  short  time  before  the  troubles 
of  1709,  Captain  Brett  had  been  a  shareholder  in 
the  patent ;  but  Rich's  penchant  for  sole  power 
soon  forced  him  out  of  the  management.  Brett's 
political  influence  may  have  had  something  to 
do  with  closing  the  patent  house.  But  the  essen- 
tial thing  is  that  Queen  Anne  did  not  hesitate 


INTRODUCTORY  13 

to  silence  the  patents  issued  by  Charles  II,  and 
that  the  restriction  was  not  removed  during  her 
lifetime.  The  patents  were  null  and  void  from 
June  6, 1709,  until  after  the  accession  of  George 
I  in  1714,  when  John  Rich,  son  of  Christopher, 
was  permitted  to  open  his  new  Lincoln's-Inn- 
Fields  Theatre  under  one  of  them. 

Closely  associated  with  the  affair  which  led  to 
the  closing  of  the  patent  theatre  there  is  an  epi- 
sode of  peculiar  interest.  It  is  to  be  found  in  a 
report  made  to  Queen  Anne  by  her  attorney  and 
solicitor-general,  in  pursuance  to  an  Order  in 
Council  of  February  18,  1709,  to  inquire  into 
the  difficulties  at  the  patent  theatre.  The  rej)ort 
itself  bears  date  of  November  8,  1711.  It  con- 
tains Rich's  excuse  for  not  obeying  the  Cham- 
berlain's order  to  pay  the  actors,  viz.,  "because 
that  officer's  name  was  not  mentioned  in  the 
patent ;  but  that  he  readily  assented  to  her  Ma- 
jesty's pleasure  in  shutting  up  the  house,  and  had 
not  since  acted."  The  report  further  informs 
us  that  Rich  continued  in  the  capacity  of  tenant 
at  Drury  Lane  until  November  22,  1709,  when 
William  Collier  (who  was  a  lawyer,  member  of 
Parliament,  and  an  intriguing  politician)  came 
to  the  door  of  the^theatre  with  an  armed  band, 
"  and  in  a  riotous  and  violent  manner ''  broke  into 
the  theatre,  turned  out  Rich,  and  took  possession. 
So  much  for  Rich's  testimony.    Collier,  on  his 


14  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

side,  produced  a  letter,  dated  November  19, 1709, 
containing  her  Majesty's  permission  for  the  said 
Collier  to  perform  at  the  theatre  on  the  23d  of 
November,  and  also  stating  that  a  license  for 
him  was  in  preparation.  The  letter  further  in- 
structed Collier  "  not  to  permit  Rich,  or  any 
other  pers.on  claiming  under  him,  to  interfere 
with  him  [Collier]  or  his  company."  Collier  was 
advised  that  a  patent  was  of  no  effect  unless 
supported  by  the  crown;  and  that  if  any  one 
claiming  rights  under  the  patent  of  Charles  II 
should  submit  to  her  Majesty's  pleasure,  and 
waive  all  claims  to  the  patent,  the  Queen  would 
permit  such  an  one  to  open  the  theatre.  Now,  it 
appears  that  this  Collier  was  a  shareholder  in 
the  patent,  and,  having  made  the  required  sub- 
mission, had  received  the  royal  sanction  to  act  on 
the  date  mentioned.^ 

The  foregoing  incident  marks  the  second  stage 
in  the  history  of  the  theatrical  monopoly,  and 
forms  the  second  precedent  of  the  superiority  of 
crown  prerogative  over  patent  rights.  It  would 
be  rash,  however,  to  conclude  that  the  patents 
issued  by  Charles  II,  and  still  in  Rich's  posses- 
sion, had  been  made  nugatory  by  the  silencing 
act  of  Queen  Anne,  or  by  the  superseding  license 
issued  to  Collier.    But,  certainly,  the  peremptory 

^  An  abstract  of  this  curious  incident  may  be  found  in  the 

Dramatic  Censor  ior  1811,  cols.  101-1-G. 


INTRODUCTORY  15 

conduct  of  the  Queen  had  an  unsettling  effect 
on  theatrical  affairs  for  the  time  being. 

Wilks,  Colley  Gibber,  and  Doggett,  the  three 
leading  actors  at  the  patent  house  at  this  time 
(1709),  now  entered  into  an  arrangement  with 
Swiney  at  the  Opera  House  to  conduct  that  the- 
atre alternately  as  an  English  playhouse  and 
Italian  opera.  This  aroused  Collier's  jealousy, 
who,  two  years  later,  got  Swiney  to  exchange 
theatres  with  him.  But  again  the  Opera  House 
proved  unsuccessful,  and,  in  1712,  Collier  re- 
turned to  Drury  Lane  and  took  the  leading 
actors  with  him.  In  the  shuffle  that  was  going 
on  continually  at  this  time,  Doggett  was  dis- 
carded, and  another  actor.  Booth,  was  taken  into 
partnership  at  the  patent  house.  The  unfortu- 
nate Swiney,  who  had  served  as  a  hand-ball  for 
others'  games,  failed  at  Vanbrugh's  Opera  House 
and  was  forced  to  abscond  early  in  1713.  As  for 
old  Christopher  Rich,  "he  would  still  hold  out, 
notwithstanding  his  being  so  miserably  maim'd. 
.  .  .  He  had  no  more  regard  to  Blows,  than  a 
blind  Cock  of  the  Game ;  he  might  be  beaten, 
but  would  never  yield,  the  Patent  was  still  in  his 
possession,  and  the  Broad-Seal  to  it  visibly  as 
fresh  as  ever."  ^  But  Rich  did  not  live  to  avenge 
himself  upon  his  enemies.  He  had  bought  and 
fitted  up  the  Lincoln's-Inn-Fields  Theatre  against 
1  Gibber,  Apology,  p.  337. 


16  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

the  time  when  he  might  hope  for  better  favor 
from  the  crown.  But  he  died  a  few  weeks  before 
the  opening  of  that  theatre  under  his  son,  John 
Kich,  to  whom  the  patents  descended  and  who 
opened  the  new  Lincoln's-Inn-Fields  Theatre  in 
1714,  probably  on  the  supposition  that  those 
documents  were  valid  and  that  Queen  Anne's 
silencing  mandate  ceased  with  her  death. 

One  other  circumstance,  essential  to  the  later 
development  of  our  subject,  belongs  to  this  period. 
This  was  the  conflict  over  the  patent  granted  to 
Sir  Richard  Steele  in  the  first  year  of  the  reign 
of  George  I.  The  patent  was  for  the  lifetime  of 
Steele,  plus  three  years,  the  three  j^ears  having 
been  included  for  the  purpose  of  giving  Steele's 
executors  time  to  settle  his  estate.  The  names  of 
Wilks,  Gibber,  and  Booth  were  in  Steele's  patent 
which,  it  would  seem,  was  a  continuation  of  Gol- 
lier's  license,  which  in  turn  had  superseded  Rich's 
patent.  From  1714  to  1719,  theatrical  affairs 
ran  smoothly  enough.  But,  in  the  latter  year, 
the  Lord  Ghamberlain  (then  the  Duke  of  New- 
castle) affected  to  receive  some  sort  of  umbrage 
from  Colley  Gibber,  one  of  the  shareholders  in 
Steele's  patent,  and  forbade  that  gentleman  to 
perform  at  Drury  Lane.  This  action  was  but 
the  preliminary  to  the  one  that  followed,  declar- 
ing the  patent  forfeited.  It  is  not  my  purpose  to 
enter  into  all  the  details  which  culminated  in 


INTRODUCTORY  17 

this  event  —  some  of  these,  at  least,  belong  to  the 
history  of  politics ;  it  is  sufficient  here  to  point 
out  those  facts  affecting  the  theory  and  practice 
of  theatrical  monoply.  Steele  appealed  his  case 
to  the  Lord  Chamberlain,  but  was  forbidden 
by  that  official  to  write,  speak,  or  correspond 
with  him  in  any  manner  whatever.  Steele  then 
raised  the  plea  that  his  patent  was  a  freehold, 
and  had  been  so  adjudged  by  the  Solicitor-Gen- 
eral and  Sir  Edward  Northey,  another  eminent 
lawyer,  when  the  document  was  passing.  The 
same  legal  authorities  are  quoted  as  favoring 
the  opinion  that  the  grants  of  Charles  II  in 
nowise  limited  succeeding:  sovereigfus  in  similar 
matters.  In  other  words,  Steele  maintained  that 
his  patent  was  of  the  same  legal  value  as  those 
of  Killigrew  and  Davenant,  except  as  to  time, 
the  equivalent  of  which,  he  claimed,  he  might 
have  had  for  the  asking.  The  highest  legal  au- 
thorities of  the  day,  F.  Pemberton,  Sir  Edward 
Northey,  and  Sir  Thomas  Parker,  are  cited  as 
supporting  the  view  that,  though  the  operation  of 
the  patents  granted  by  Charles  II  might  continue 
after  his  death,  no  prohibition  on  acting  plays 
in  London  or  Westminster  could  be  effectual 
beyond  the  life  of  the  king  issuing  it.  But  all 
resistance  was  in  vain.  Every  argument  brought 
forward  by  Steele  in  support  of  his  patent,  as  op- 
posed to  the  original  patents  granted  by  Charles 


18  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

II,  only  armed  the  King  so  much  the  more  in  ex- 
ercising his  prerogative,  which  he  did  on  Janu- 
ary 23,  1719-20  in  an  order  revoking  Steele's 
patent,  and  another  discharging  the  performers.^ 
A  review  of  Steele's  case,  together  with  Rich's 
ejectment  in  1709,  brings  out  the  very  evident 
conclusion  that,  irrespective  of  the  political  jug- 
glery which  characterized  the  period,  the  crown 
saw  the  necessity,  and  acted  accordingly,  of 
bringing  theatrical  amusements  in  London  under 
the  jurisdiction  of  the  Lord  Chamberlain.  As  to 
the  question  of  patent  rights,  based  on  the  grants 
to  Killigrew  and  Davenant,  neither  King  Wil- 
liam, Queen  Anne,  nor  George  I  hesitated  to  issue 
licenses  and  patents  regardless  of  the  action  of 
any  former  sovereign.  Even  the  patentees  them- 
selves, with  the  single  exception  of  Steele,  never 
once  questioned  the  crown  prerogative  in  theat- 
rical matters.  Christopher  Rich  alone  seemed  to 
appreciate  the  value  of  the  old  patents,  and  while 
he  silently  obeyed  the  mandate  of  Anne  to  close 
Drury  Lane  Theatre,  he  held  fast  to  his  patents 

^  Steele  supported  his  cause  before  the  public  in  a  two-page 
sheet,  issued  twice  a  week,  over  the  pseudonymn  of  ' '  Sir  John 
Edgar."  Later,  his  defense  was  published  in  pamphlet  form  as 
"The  State  of  the  Case  between  the  Lord  Chamberlain  of  His 
Majesty's  Household,  and  the  Governor  of  the  Royal  Company 
of  Comedians,  with  the  Opinions  of  Pemberton,  Northey,  and 
Parker,  concerning  the  Theatre."  Pp.  31,  London,  1720.  See 
also  Dramatic  Censor  for  1811,  cols.  115  S. 


INTRODUCTORY  19 

and  passed  them  on  to  his  son.  After  events 
proved  Rich  the  most  far-seeing  manager  who 
appeared  during  the  first  half-centuiy  of  the  his- 
tory of  the  monopoly.  And  as  regards  that  same 
monopoly,  it  is  well  to  note  here  that  not  once 
during  the  period  thus  far  reviewed  do  we  hear 
a  single  voice  in  support  of  a  theatrical  monopoly. 
Drury  Lane  itself,  the  home  of  the  monopoly, 
after  the  ejection  of  Rich,  was  managed  under  a 
temporary  license  for  twenty-one  years,  which 
expired  and  was  renewed  in  1732.  It  was  during 
this  period  (1711-1732)  that  Drury  Lane,  under 
the  expert  management  of  Wilks,  Gibber,  and 
Booth,  was  the  most  prosperous.  It  was  during 
this  period,  too,  that  the  theatrical  situation  in 
London  was  affected  by  new  elements  which  led 
to  the  climax  of  1737. 


CHAPTER  II 

THE   RISE    OF   THE    HAYMARKET   AND   GOODMAN's 

FIELDS   THEATRES,    AND    THEIR    EFFECTS    ON 

THE    QUESTION    OF    PATENT    RIGHTS 

THE  first  half-century  of  the  Patent  Theatres 
in  London  constitutes  an  epoch  in  the  his- 
tory of  the  monopoly,  characterized  by  a  lack  of 
competition  in  the  theatrical  business  —  outside 
that  between  the  two  houses,  of  course  — and  by 
an  almost  constant  exercise  of  the  crown  prerog- 
ative over  the  patentees.  The  public  were  inter- 
ested in  the  theatres  chiefly  as  means  for  their 
amusement.  However,  from  about  1720,  a  new 
turn  is  given  to  theatricals  in  London,  a  turn 
which,  for  a  time,  threatened  to  submerge  both 
the  patent  houses,  but,  instead,  culminated  in  es- 
tablishing the  monopoly  more  firmly  than  ever 
before.  Numerous  causes  might  be  adduced  to 
explain  this  phenomenon.  Two  of  these  stand 
out  in  strong  contrast  to  the  rest.  The  immense 
success  of  Gibber  and  his  colleagues  in  manag- 
ing Drury  Lane  called  the  attention  of  shrewd 
business  men  to  the  commercial  side  of  supply- 
ing the  public  taste  with  theatrical  novelties. 
Furthermore,  as  has  been  suggested  already,  the 


HAYMARKET  AND   GOODMAN'S    FIELDS    21 

strong  hand  of  the  crown  over  the  patentees,  on 
numerous  occasions,  led  men  interested  in  the 
matter  to  have  a  contempt  for  the  patents  issued 
by  Charles  II.  And,  in  the  second  place,  the 
rising  spirit  of  satire  had  an  instantaneous  effect 
on  the  stage.  There  is  no  avenue  so  inviting  to 
the  satirist  as  the  drama,  for  the  very  gossipy 
nature  of  such  performances  assures  for  them  a 
large  public.  The  development  of  competition 
in  theatricals  and  the  rapidly  growing  tendency 
to  satirize  political  and  social  foibles  reinforced 
each  other,  and  thus  increased  the  demand  for 
more  theatres.  Within  a  decade  after  1720, 
London  boasted  half-a-dozen  theatres,  and  every 
street  had  its  theatrical  booth  where  perform- 
ances similar  to  those  at  the  other  theatres 
might  be  seen.^  This  new  phase  of  the  problem 
forced  the  patentees  to  adopt  a  fixed  policy  of 
action  against  the  "  minors  "  (for  so  the  inde- 
pendent theatres  were  called),  and  precipitated 
parliamentary  interference  in  theatrical  exhibi- 
tions. 

It  was  in  1720  that  a  carpenter  by  the  name 

^  In  a  single  number  of  the  Grub  Street  Journal  (August  27, 
1730),  no  less  than  five  theatrical  booths  are  advertised.  One 
of  these  advertisements  runs  as  follows :  "  At  Mr.  Penkerth- 
man  and  Mr.  W.  Giffard's  great  Theatrical  Booth,  is  acted  a 
new  Droll,  called  Wat  Tyler  and  Jack  Straw,  in  which  are 
presented  my  Lord  Mayor,  four  Mobbs,  and  a  great  deal  of 
hollowing,  singing  and  dancing." 


22  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

of  Potter  began  the  erection  of  a  new  theatre  in 
the  Haymarket,  nearly  opposite  to  the  Opera 
House  built  by  Vanbrugh.  It  does  not  appear 
that  Potter  intended  to  start  a  rival  company  to 
the  patentees ;  he  seems  to  have  built  his  new 
theatre  as  a  mere  speculation,  hoping  to  let  it  for 
occasional  dramatic  exhibitions.  It  is  difficult 
to  determine  the  exact  date  when  Potter  opened 
his  Little  Theatre  in  the  Haymarket  (so  called 
to  distinguish  it  from  the  Opera  House) ;  but 
the  first  play-bill  collected  by  Genest  for  this 
theatre  is  as  follows :  "  At  the  new  Theatre  over 
against  The  Opera  House  in  the  Haymarket, 
December  12,  1723,  will  be  presented  a  new 
Comedy  called  the  Female  Fop  —  to  be  per- 
formed by  persons,  who  never  yet  appeared  in 
public."  Cheap  operas,  burlesques,  and  farces 
formed  the  usual  programme  at  the  Little  The- 
atre during  its  early  years,  and  these  perform- 
ances became  more  and  more  pointed  and  pro- 
nounced in  their  satiric  and  burlesque  elements. 
Penelope^  a.  burlesque  opera  in  three  acts,  was 
brought  out  at  the  Haymarket  in  1728.  The 
next  year,  Patron,  or  Statesman's  Opera,  was 
produced  there,  as  was  also  the  Beggar  s  Wed- 
ding, suggestive  of  Gay's  famous  Opera  of  the 
year  before.  Probably,  the  most  popular  of  the 
satires  put  on  at  the  Haymarket  in  1729  was 
Hurlothrumbo.    This   took   London   by  storm, 


HAYMARKET  AND   GOODMAN'S   FIELDS     23 

had  a  phenomenal  run  of  over  thirty  nights,  and 
was  discontinued  only  because  the  season  was  at 
an  end.^  It  swept  over  England,  was  enacted 
with  great  applause  at  the  chief  cities,  —  and  the 
suspected  political  satire  made  it  none  the  less 
popular. 

The  following  season  (1730) ,  Tom  Thumb  made 
his  debut;  and,  the  same  year,  Rival  Father 
(from  Corneille's  Death  of  Achilles),  Female 
Parson,  Merry  Masqueraders,  and  other  farces 
and  burlesques  of  similar  character  came  out  at 
the  Haymarket.  The  taste  of  the  theatre-going 
public  and  the  tendency  of  the  London  stage  in 
1730  are  indicated  by  the  foregoing  list  of  plays  ; 
for  although  the  Little  Theatre  may  have  been 
the  greatest  sinner  of  the  lot,  it  was  not  alone,  as 
will  soon  appear,  in  catering  to  an  ever-increasing 
depraved  public  demand  for  highly  seasoned 
dramatic  exhibitions.  In  1731,  Chetwood  took 
his  Generous  Freemason  to  the  Haymarket 
Theatre  (it  had  been  acted  the  year  before  at 
Gates  and  Fielding's  booth),  ^  and  it  is  probable 
that  Fielding's  Letter  Writer  was  acted  there 
the  same  year. 

The  condition  into  which  the  stage  was  rapidly 
drifting  could  not  long  continue  without  a  crisis. 
The  climax  to  be  reached  needed  only  a  master 

1  Fog's  Weekly  Journal,  July  5,  1729. 

2  Grub  Street  Journal,  August  27,  1730. 


24  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

in  satire.  By  1731,  the  necessity  for  placing  a 
check  on  unbridled  scurrility  on  the  stage  had 
become  evident.  It  was  during  the  summer  of 
that  year  that  the  then  but  recently  popular  Hur- 
lothrumho  was  placed  under  the  ban.  In  "  Fog's 
Weekly  Journal"  for  August  28,  1731,  we  read 
the  signs  of  the  time  :  "  The  Players  of  the  Little 
Theatre  in  the  Haymarket  last  Week  printed 
their  Bills  for  acting  a  celebrated  piece  call'd 
Hurlothrumho^  but  were  prevented  by  certain 
Constables,  who  came  to  seize  them  by  Virtue 
of  a  Warrant  or  Warrants  from  the  Justices  of 
Westminster  ;  so  that  this  seditious  Play  will  be 
acted  no  more,  and,  if  it  be  true,  that  the  silly 
Character  of  Lord  Flame  is  meant  as  a  Satyr 
upon  any  body,  it  was  prudent  to  prevent  it." 
The  following  year  a  histori-tragi-comi-ballad 
ojDera,  entitled  Restauration  of  King  Charles 
the  Second,  or  The  Life  and  Death  of  Oliver 
Cromwell,  was  forbidden  to  be  acted  at  the  Hay- 
market.  But  the  limit  of  this  satiric  rage  in  the 
London  theatres  had  not  yet  run  its  course,  and 
before  the  sudden  reaction  of  1737  new  elements 
were  added  to  the  situation,  tending  to  hasten 
and  to  complicate  the  solution. 

Hitherto,  the  London  theatres  had  been  con- 
fined to  the  West  End,  that  is,  within  the  lim- 
its of  the  city  proper.  In  1729,  a  new  theatre 
was  added  to  the  list :  and  this  business  venture 


HAYMARKET  AND   GOODMAN'S  FIELDS    25 

was  made  in  the  East  End.  In  the  "  Coffee-House 
Morning  Post "  o£  the  24th  of  September,  1729, 
an  announcement  appeared  to  the  effect  that  "  a 
Gentleman  well-skilled  in  the  Management  of 
a  Theatre,  has  obtained  Letters  Patent  to  erect 
one  in  Ayliffe- Street,  in  Goodman^ s  Fields,  by 
Way  of  Subscription,  and  that  the  Undertaking 
meets  with  Approbation,"  On  the  30th  of  the 
same  month,  the  "  Daily  Post "  informed  the 
public  that  "  it  appears  that  only  seven  or  eight 
Persons  have  applied  to  the  Justices  against 
Erecting  the  said  Theatre,  but  that  there  has 
been  no  meeting  about  it."  The  gentleman 
"  well-skilled  "  was  Thomas  Odell ;  but  if  his 
"  undertaking  "  met  with  "  approbation  "  at  the 
time  of  the  advertisement  in  the  "  Morning  Post," 
there  must  have  been  a  violent  reversal  of  pub- 
lic opinion  within  a  few  weeks,  for,  "  on  Tuesday 
Night  last  [October  7,  1729],"  reports  "Fog's 
Weekly  Journal"  for  October  11,  1729,  "the 
Justices  of  the  Peace,  Gentlemen,  and  principal 
Inhabitants  in  Goodman's  Fields,  and  Places  ad- 
jacent, had  a  General  Meeting  at  the  Hoop  and 
Grapes  in  the  Minories,  to  concert  Measures  to 
put  a  Stop  to  the  further  Progress  of  the  New 
Theatre,  intended  to  be  erected  in  Ayliffe-Street." 
This  protest  bears  the  signatures  of  "  Sam.  Cow- 
per  and  Sam  Sadleir,  clerks  to  the  Justices  for 
the  Tower  Division."    Their  opposition  to  the 


26  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

proposed  new  theatre  was  based  on  the  grounds 
that,  being  "  so  near  several  publick  Offices,  and 
the  Thames^  where  so  much  Business  is  negoti- 
ated, and  carried  on  for  the  support  of  Trade 
and  Navigation,  will  draw  away  Tradesmen's  Ser- 
vants and  others  from  their  lawful  Callings,  and 
corrupt  their  Manners,  and  also  occasion  great 
numbers  of  loose,  idle  and  disorderly  Persons, 
as  Street-Robbers  and  Common  Night- Walkers, 
so  to  infest  the  Streets,  that  it  will  be  very  dan- 
gerous for  his  Majesty's  Subjects  to  pass  the 
same."  ^ 

In  a  similar  strain,  the  Lord  Mayor  was  ap- 
pealed to,  to  suppress  the  Goodman's  Fields 
playhouse,  for,  it  was  apprehended,  the  cost  of 
that  theatre  to  the  kingdom  would  be  found  to  be 
"a  great  deal  above  Three  Hundred  Thousand 
Pounds  a  year  by  the  loss  ...  in  the  work  and 
labour  of  the  Artificers  and  other  Spectators 
that  fill  it."  2  From  the  pulpit  Arthur  Bedford, 
chaplain  to  Hoxton  Hospital,  and  preacher  of 

^  Gazette  for  October  14, 1729.  Appended  to  Arthur  Bedford's 
"  A  Sermon  Preached  in  the  Parish  Church  of  St.  Butolph's 
in  the  City  of  London,  November  30,  1729." 

2  From  a  letter  by  a  citizen  to  Sir  Richard  Brocas,  Lord 
Mayor  of  London,  1730,  referred  to  in  "  An  Extract  from  a 
MS.  by  Oldys,"  and  commented  on  in  a  marginal  note  to  an 
original  (1708)  copy  of  Downes's  JRoscius  Anglicanus.  See 
Joseph  Knight's  Preface  (xxxiii)  to  his  facsimile  reprint  of 
Downes's  book. 


HAYMARKET  AND   GOODMAN'S   FIELDS     27 

afternoon  Sunday  sermons  at  St.  Butolph's,  Aid- 
gate,  hurled  his  invectives  against  Odell's  pro- 
ject. The  charges  brought  by  Bedford  against 
the  stage  remind  one  of  the  upbraidings  of  the 
Puritans  a  century  before.  He  accused  the  dra- 
matists and  the  theatres  of  profaning  the  name 
of  God ;  of  inciting  duels  and  murders ;  of  in- 
ducing idleness  among  the  youth  by  alluring 
them  away  from  their  work  "  again  and  again ; " 
of  fostering  adultery  and  whoredom ;  *  of  paving<i 
the  road  to  thievery  and  outlawry  (a  thrust  at 
the  Beggar^s  Opera') ;  and  of  breeding  a  con- 
tempTfor  all  religion. 

Odell  does  not  seem  to  have  been  deterred  by 
these  railings  ;  for  all  authorities  agree  that  he 
completed  his  theatre,  gathered  a  company  of 
actors,  and  began  theatrical  performances.  The 
exact  date  of  the  opening,  however,  is  uncertain. 
There  is  every  indication  that  the  Goodman's 
Fields  Theatre  was  extremely  successful  from 
the  outset;  so  much  so,  indeed,  that  the  clamor 
against  it  was  greater  after  it  opened  than  before. 
The  evils  apprehended  before  the  erection  of  the 
theatre  seemed  to  have  multiplied  fourfold  after 
the  opening,  and  it  became  evident  that  some- 

^  Bedford  eitea  the  play  Gibraltar  in  ■which  the  following' 
appears  :  "  Whores  are  dog  cheap  here  in  London.  For  a  man 
may  slip  into  the  play-house  Passage,  and  pick  up  half-a-dozen 
for  half-a-crown." 


28  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

thing  must  be  done  to  appease  its  opponents. 
But  the  situation  was  unique.  Goodman's  Fields 
lay  outside  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Lord  Mayor 
and  Aldermen  of  London,  and  there  was  no  pre- 
cedent, at  least  in  the  memory  of  men  then  living, 
for  dealing  with  the  case.  In  an  attempt,  there- 
fore, to  bring  the  matter  to  a  head,  on  the  28th 
of  April,  1730,  the  Lord  Mayor  and  Aldermen 
petitioned  the  crown  to  silence  Goodman's  Fields 
^Theatre,  alleging  the  objections,  moral  and  in- 
dustrial, already  presented.  To  this  appeal  his 
Majesty  gave  his  promise  to  issue  the  required 
order.^  The  next  day  Odell  waited  on  the  King 
at  court  and  appealed  for  leave  to  continue  his 
performances  at  the  theatre  as  usual ;  but  his 
request  was  denied.^  Thus  forced  out  of  his  un- 
dertaking, Odell  secured  a  piece  of  ground  near 
Tottenham  Court  Road  and  began  to  erect  a 
new  playhouse.^ 

But  the  silencing  mandate  of  the  King  was 
of  short  duration,  and  if  Odell  had  been  pos- 
sessed of  the  temerity  of  his  manager,  Henry 
Gift'ard,  he  might  have  continued  his  opera- 
tions at  the  Goodman's  Fields  Theatre  without 

1  St.  James  Evening  Post,  April  30,  1730.    Quoted  in  Grub 
Street  Journal,  May  7,  1730. 

2  Post  Boy,  April  30,  1730.  Quoted  in  Grub  Street  Journal, 
May  7,  1730. 

3  St.  James  Evening  Post,  July  30,  1730.  Quoted  in  Grub 
Street  Journal,  August  6,  1730. 


HAYMARKET  AND   GOODMAN'S   FIELDS    29 

other  molestation  than  the  maledictions  of  the 
preachers  and  tradesmen.  Giffard,  for  his  age 
(b.  1699),  had  had  considerable  experience :  at 
seventeen,  he  was  a  clerk  in  the  South  Sea  Com- 
pany ;  at  twenty,  he  took  to  the  stage,  played  at 
Bath  awhile,  then  joined  Rich's  Lincoln's-Inn- 
Fields  company,  thence  to  Dublin  where  he  rose 
to  the  management  of  the  theatre.  Soon  after 
Odell  launched  on  his  Goodman's  Fields  venture, 
he  admitted  Giffard,  and,  because  of  the  latter's 
superior  training  in  the  business,  turned  over  the 
management  of  the  theatre  to  him.^  When  Odell 
was  driven,  as  he  thought,  to  seek  new  fields  for 
his  speculations,  Giffard  remained  at  his  post  in 
Goodman's  Fields  and  awaited  his  opportunity. 
The  year  after  the  silencing  order,  Giffard  took 
the  theatre  on  his  own  account,  remodeled  it, 
refurnished  it  with  costumes  and  scenes,  and 
opened  on  the  27th  of  September,  1731,  with 
George  Barnwell."^  The  old  clamors  against  the 
playhouse  were  at  once  revived  with  redoubled 
fury.  "  The  street  where  it  is  built,"  wails  the 
"Universal  Spectator"  (April  12,  1732),  "was 
formerly  inhabited  by  Silk-Throwsters,  Riband- 
Weavers,    etc,    who    employ'd   the     industrious 

^  This  account  of  Giffard,  up  to  his  joining  Odell,  is  made 
up  from  Chetwood's  narrative,  A  General  History  of  the  Stage, 
etc.  p.  166. 

2  Fog's  Weekly  Journal,  No.  149,  September  11,  1731. 


30  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

poor  ;  immediately  on  setting  up  this  Playhouse, 
the  rents  were  raised,  and  now  there  is  a  Bunch 
of  Grapes  hanging  almost  at  every  door,  besides 
an  adjacent  bagnio  or  two;  ..."  But  Giffard 
continued  in  peaceful  security,  nothing  disturbed, 
until  1737,  when  the  Goodman's  Fields  Theatre 
was  effectually  closed. 

The  question  whether  Giffard  built  a  new  the- 
atre distinct  from  the  one  erected  by  Odell,  and, 
if  he  did,  where  it  was  located,  has  been  in  much 
doubt  and  confusion.  Most,  if  not  quite  all,  of 
the  authorities  on  the  subject  are  of  opinion  that 
Giffard,  after  Odell's  ejection,  did  build  another 
theatre  ;  but  they  all  are  at  sea  as  to  the  location 
of  one  or  other  of  the  supposed  two  theatres  in 
Goodman's  Fields.  The  misconception  respect- 
ing the  matter  has  probably  grown  out  of  one 
of  Chetwood's  numerous  incorrect  statements. 
The  statement  is  this :  "  In  1733  Giffard  caused 
to  be  built  an  intire  new,  beautiful,  convenient 
Theatre,  by  the  same  architect  as  that  of  Covent 
Garden."  The  other  eighteenth  century  writers 
correct  Chetwood  as  to  the  date,  1732  being  more 
in  favor  with  them  ;  but  none  of  these  designates 
the  site  of  Giffard's  theatre.  The  painstaking 
Genest  is  disturbed  by  such  indefiniteness,  and 
seeks  relief  in  the  assumption  that  there  were 
two  theatres  in  Goodman's  Fields,  and  conjec- 
tures that  Odell's  was  in  Leman  Street,  Giffard's 


HAYMARKET   AND   GOODMAN'S   FIELDS    31 

in  Ayliffe  Street.*  One  other  evidence  gives 
color  to  the  theory  that  Giffard  built  a  new  the- 
atre. "  The  Gentleman's  Magazine  "  for  October, 
1732  (p.  1028),  in  giving  an  account  of  the 
opening  night  at  Goodman's  Fields,  speaks  of 
the  house  as  a  "  new  Theatre,"  and  gives  a  de- 
tailed description  of  its  interior. 

The  probabilities  are,  however,  that  there  was 
only  one  theatre  in  Goodman's  Fields  at  the  time 
under  discussion,  that  it  was  built  by  Odell  in 
Ayliffe  Street,  and  later  was  remodeled  or  re- 
built by  Giffard.  The  evidences  for  this  conclu- 
sion are  numerous.  The  advertisement  in  the 
"Coffee-House  Morning  Post,"  September  24, 
1729,  distinctly  mentions  Ayliffe  Street  as  the 
site  of  the  proposed  new  theatre.  That  this  was 
Odell's  theatre  is  plain,  for  Giffard  was  not  then 
in  London,  and  no  authority  places  Giffard's  con- 
jectural new  theatre  before  1732.  Furthermore, 
we  know  that  Giffard  did  remodel  the  Odell  the- 
atre in  1731,  if  we  may  rely  on  the  statement 
made  in  "  Fog's  Weekly  Journal,"  September  11, 
1731,  and  it  is  improbable  that  he  should  build 
"  an  intire,  new,  beautiful,  convenient  Theatre  " 
between  the  closing  of  the  season  1731-32  and 
the  opening  in  the  following  autumn.  As  to  the 
reference  in  "  The  Gentleman's  Magazine  "  to 
"  the  new  Theatre  in  Goodman's  Fields,"  Odell's 
^  Genest,  Some  Account  of  the  English  Stage,  iv,  196. 


32  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

theatre  was  still  new,  and  the  refurbishings  made 
during  the  summer  would  justify  the  description. 
Again,  in  the  "  Weekly  Miscellany,"  March  8, 
1735,  there  is  a  remonstrance  against  a  proposed 
new  theatre  near  the  centre  of  the  city,  and  in  the 
course  of  the  complaints  reference  is  made  to 
the  silencing  of  Odell's  theatre  ;  "  but  it  still  con- 
tinues despite  the  order,"  emphatically  declares 
the  remonstrant.  As  a  final  proof  that  Giffard 
did  not  build  a  second  theatre,  one  needs  only 
to  recall  that  when  John  Rich  moved  into  his 
new  Covent  Garden  Theatre  (1733),  Giffard 
was  induced  to  rent  Rich's  Lincoln's-Inn-Fields 
house,  whither  he  removed  in  the  spring  of  1736 
(but  soon  returned  to  Goodman's  Fields).  If 
Giffard  had  but  recently  completed  a  new  thea- 
tre of  his  own  in  Goodman's  Fields,  it  is  not 
likely  that  he  would  leave  it  so  soon  for  the 
vacated  theatre  in  Lincoln's-Inn-Fields. 

But  a  question  of  greater  importance  to  our 
subject  relates  to  Giffard's  tenure  at  Goodman's 
Fields  Theatre.  It  would  seem  that  Odell  opened 
the  theatre  under  some  sort  of  royal  authority, 
and  it  was  the  withdrawal  of  that  authority  which 
caused  him  to  abandon  his  venture.  This,  how- 
ever, he  did  not  do  without  a  vehement  protest.^ 
Yet  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  he  acknowledged 
the  authority  of  the  crown  in  the  matter.    As  to 

^  Knight's  Preface  to  Downes's  Eoscius  Anglicanus,  p.  xzxiii. 


HAYMARKET  AND   GOODMAN'S   FIELDS     33 

GI£fard,the  case  is  quite  different.  Public  opin- 
ion was  as  strong  against  him  as  against  Odell ; 
nevertheless,  he  continued  to  operate  the  Good- 
man's Fields  Theatre  for  years  unmolested,  and. 
without  any  visible  authority  other  than  his  own 
audacity.  Still,  not  only  does  it  appear  that  it 
was  the  common  opinion  of  the  time  that  Gif- 
fard's  course  in  acting  plays  without  a  license 
was  not  unlawful,  but,  also,  the  doubt  was  fre- 
quently expressed  whether  the  crown  preroga- 
tive itself  extended  so  far  as  to  silence  playhouse 
managers  not  holding  their  privileges  from  the 
crown.^  This  is  the  key  to  an  understanding  of 
theatrical  affairs  in  London  from  1720  to  1737, 
distinctly  marking  the  period  off  from  the  first 
fifty  years  of  the  patent  theatres.  It  means  that, 
for  the  first  time  since  1660,  crown  prerogative 
in  matters  of  public  amusement,  so  far  as  protec- 
tion was  concerned,  was  placed  below  the  author- 
ity of  independent  theatre  managers.  It  means 
that  those  interested  in  the  theatre  as  a  business 
had  discovered  that  patent  rights  were  inferior 
to  independent  speculation ;  for  experience  had 
proved  that  the  crown  might  silence  what  it 
had  created.  Hence,  the  bold  competition  which 
sprang  up  from  about  1729  onwards ;  a  compe- 
tition which  placed  the  patentees  on  a  par  with 

^   Gibber,  Apology,   p.   228;   Weekly   Miscellany,  March  8, 
1735 ;  London  Magazine,  March,  1735. 


34  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

any  adventurer  who  desired  to  enter  the  field. 
An  extravagant  abuse  of  this  newly  discovered 
tolei«,tion  led  to  the  stringent  measure  of  1737. 
Before  taking  up  the  immediate  causes  which 
brought  about  the  Licensing  Act,  it  will  be  ne- 
cessary to  examine  the  doings  of  the  patentees 
themselves.  In  1733,  John  Rich  removed  from 
Lincoln's-Inn-Fields  to  his  new  Covent  Garden 
Theatre,  which  he  opened  under  one  of  the  two 
original  jjatents,  still  in  his  possession.  About 
the  same  time,  Booth,  one  of  the  owners  of 
Drury  Lane  Theatre,  died,  and  his  widow,  Wilks, 
and  Colley  Cibber  disposed  of  the  theatre  to 
John  Highmore,  Esquire.^  Giffard  of  Good- 
man's Fields  seems  to  have  been  admitted  by 
Highmore  to  a  one  sixth  share  in  the  concern, 
because  of  his  successful  experience.^  Highmore 
was  a  gentleman  of  leisure  and  sport,  but  was 
unsuited  to  the  business  of  managing  a  theatre. 
For,  almost  immediately  after  he  assumed  con- 
trol of  Drury  Lane,  he  fell  out  with  his  actors, 
who  accused  him  of  tyranny  and  revolted  from 
his  standard.  The  fact  of  the  matter  is  that  The- 
ophilus  Cibber,  son  of  Colley,  was  incensed  be- 
cause his  father  did  not  pass  the  control  of  the 
theatre  on  to  him  instead  of  disposing  of  it  to 

1  Daily  Post,  March  27,  1732-33.     Quoted  in  Grub  Street 
Journal,  March  29,  1733. 

2  Grub  Street  Journal,  October  11,  1733. 


HAYxMARKET   AND   GOODMAN'S   FIELDS    35 

Highmore,  and  so  determined  to  wreck  the  new 
manager.  Exorbitant  demands  were  made  on 
Higlimore,  among  others  that  he  should  share 
the  profits  with  tlie  actors.  This  the  proprietor, 
somewhat  stiff-necked,  flatly  refused  to  do :  he 
felt  that  twelve  guineas  per  week  each  for  the 
season  was  as  much  as  the  actors  were  worth  to 
him.  No  doubt,  prejudice  was  created  against 
Highmore  from  the  circumstance  of  his  holdino; 
in  his  single  possession  the  shares  of  the  three 
former  patentees.  And,  moreover,  the  contention 
raised  by  Theophilus,  that  a  theatre  would  be 
better  managed  by  actors  than  by  private  specu- 
lators, had  its  weight  in  the  controversy ;  for 
had  not  the  halcyon  days  of  Drury  been  under 
the  management  of  Gibber,  Wilks,  and  Booth? 
But  Highmore  was  adamant ;  even  the  threats  of 
the  actors  to  take  forcible  control  of  the  theatre 
did  not  move  him.  Thereupon,  in  May,  1733, 
the  younger  Gibber  led  a  revolt  against  the  new 
manager,  and  secured  the  Little  Theatre  in  the 
Hay  market  for  his  disaffected  company.  The 
elder  Gibber  used  his  influence  to  secure  a  pa- 
tent for  his  son  ;  but  this  was  denied,  and  the 
revolters  continued  the  season  at  the  Haymarket 
without  authority.^ 

1  Grub  Street  Journal,  June  7,  1-i,  July  2,  1733;  Gibber, 
Apology,  pp.  228  ff. ;  Victor,  History  of  the  Theatres  of  London 
and  Dublin,  i,  20  ff .  ;  Genest,  English  Stage,  iii,  400-406. 


36  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

Charles  Macklin,  the  Irish  comedian,  at  first 
joined  the  seceders,  but  thought  better  of  it  and 
returned  to  Highmore.  He  was  the  only  actor 
of  note  to  remain  at  Drury  Lane,  and,  just  as 
Colley  Gibber  had  found  his  opportunity  to  rise 
in  his  profession  by  the  revolt  of  Betterton,  years 
before,  so  now  Macklin  took  the  current  when 
it  served  and  placed  himself  in  a  position  from 
which  he  could  not  be  stirred  when  the  re- 
volters  returned  to  Drury  Lane  in  the  following 
March.  But  it  was  impossible  for  the  "  very 
middling  company  "  at  Drury  Lane  to  compete 
with  the  old  actors  at  the  Haymarket,  and,  al- 
most from  the  outset  of  the  contest,  Highmore 
found  his  weekly  expenses  far  to  exceed  his  re- 
ceipts. At  first  he  had  thought  to  depend  on  the 
interference  of  the  Lord  Chamberlain  in  his  be- 
half, but  that  member  of  the  King's  household 
could  not  be  induced  to  venture  in  the  case  at  all. 
Finally,  on  the  30th  of  October,  1733,  overtures 
with  the  actors  at  the  Haymarket  were  attempted, 
in  which  Highmore  succeeded  in  enlisting  Rich 
of  Covent  Garden  —  for  some  of  the  actors  at 
the  latter  theatre  seem  to  have  taken  advantage 
of  the  occasion  to  join  the  Haymarket  revolters. 
A  letter  from  the  patentees  was  addressed  to 
"  Mr.  John  Mills  and  the  other  persons  acting 
at  the  Haymarket,  but  lately  belonging  to  Drury 
Lane  and  Covent  Garden."    This  superscription 


HAYMARKET   AND   GOODMAN'S   FIELDS    37 

was  adopted,  no  doubt,  for  the  purpose  of  slight- 
ing Theophilus  Gibber,  the  ringleader  of  the 
seceding  company.  In  this  letter  the  patentees 
expressed  a  hope  that  an  amicable  understanding 
might  be  reached  between  the  contending  par- 
ties, but  added  that,  if  the  actors  persisted  in 
their  separation,  "  which  is  greatly  prejudiced 
to  us,  we  shall  be  necessitated  (tho'  contrary  to 
our  inclinations)  to  proceed  in  such  a  manner 
as  the  law  directs,  for  supporting  the  royal 
patents  under  which  we  act."  ^  The  letter  was 
returned  unopened.  It  was  then  readdressed  to 
"  Mr.  Theophilus  Gibber,"  who  at  once  answered 
in  a  haughty  note  that  "  he  had  been  advised 
that  his  action  was  legal,  that  he  knew  it  to  be 
reasonable,  and  that  he  declined  to  change  his 
present  condition  for  servitude." 

Seeing  that  all  negotiations  for  peace  were  of 
no  avail,  the  Vagrant  Act  of  12  Queen  Anne  was 
resorted  to  by  the  patentees  to  test  the  legality 
of  acting  plays  without  a  license,  or,  in  other 
words,  to  test  the  power  of  theatrical  monopoly 
rights.  Accordingly,  on  the  fifth  day  of  No- 
vember, 1733,  at  the  instigation  of  Rich  of 
Govent  Garden  and  Highmore  of  Drury  Lane, 
Mills  of  the  Haymarket  company  and  Giffard  of 
Goodman's   Fields  were   summoned   to    appear 

^  This  letter  and  the  answer  by  Gibber  appeared  in  the  pub- 
lic prints  at  the  time.     Genest  copies  them,  iii,  404,  405. 


38    THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A   FRI!E  STAGE 

before  Sir  Thomas  Clarges,  justice  of  the  peace 
for  Middlesex,  to  show  why  their  respective 
companies  should  not  be  convicted  as  vagrants 
(within  the  meaning  of  12  Anne)  for  acting  with- 
out patents.  Both  sides  were  represented  by  a 
strong  array  of  counsel,  after  hearing  which  "the 
Justices  were  pleased  to  dismiss  both  the  com- 
panies honorably,  without  making  any  order 
against  either  of  them."  ^ 

The  patentees  refused  to  abide  by  this  deci- 
sion. Learned  counsel  advised  them  to  seize  on 
the  person  of  one  of  the  leading  players  at  the 
Little  Theatre,  by  virtue  of  a  warrant  of  a  jus- 
tice of  the  peace,  and  commit  him  to  prison  as 
a  vagrant.  Accordingly,  one  Harper  was  ar- 
rested by  the  constables  and  hurried  off  to  Bride- 
well. Ample  preparations  were  made  on  both 
sides  to  test  the  act  of  12  Anne;  and  on  the 
28th  of  November,  1733,  Harper's  cause  came 
up  for  hearing  in  the  King's  Bench.  Once  more, 
to  the  chagrin  of  the  patentees,  the  case  went 
against  them,  and  Harper  was  dismissed.  Col- 
ley  Gibber,  w^ho  was  present  at  this  trial,  gives 
the  following  reason  for  Harper's  acquittal :  ^ 
"When  the  Legality  of  this  Commitment  was 
disputed  in  Westminster-Hall,  by  all  I  could 
observe,  from  the   learned    Pleadings   on    both 

^  Grub  Street  Journal,  November  3,  1733. 
2  Apology,  p.  229. 


HAYMARKET   AND   GOODMAN'S   FIELDS     39 

Sides  (for  I  had  the  Curiosity  to  hear  them) 
it  did  not  appear  to  me,  that  the  Comedian,  so 
committed,  was  within  the  Description  of  the 
said  Act,  he  being  a  Housekeeper,  and  having 
a  Vote  for  the  Westminster  Members  of  Par- 
liament. He  was  discharged  accordingly,  and 
conducted  through  the  Hall  with  the  Congratu- 
lations of  the  Crowds  that  attended,  and  wish'd 
well  to  his  Cause."  Victor  dissents  from  this 
opinion,  averring  that  housekeeping  was  no  de- 
fense against  vagrancy,  insinuating  that  this  was 
a  mere  ruse  to  hoodwink  poor  High  more  ;  for  it 
would  seem  that  there  was  a  concerted  plot  to 
ruin  the  new  manager  by  the  very  ones  who  had 
most  to  thank  him  for.  Victor's  discussion  of 
this  point  is  sufficiently  important  to  quote  in 
full.  "  I  doubt  not,"  he  says,^  "  but  my  Reader 
has  had  Penetration  enough  to  see  the  notorious 
Blunder  committed  here;  tho'  Mr  Gibber  either 
did  not,  or  would  not  see  it,  though  he  observes 
the  learned  Pleadings  entirely  turned  on  that 
single  Point,  Havper's  heing  a  Housekeeper;  I 
well  remember  when  I  heard  the  Event  of  this 
Trial,  and  on  what  a  scandalous  Error  all  their 
boasted  Triumph  was  founded,  I  could  not  help 
suspecting  the  Integrity  of  the  Person  who  con- 
ducted this  Affair ;  because,  if  the  Housekeeper^ 
who  paid  Scot  and  Lot,  could  not  be  deemed 
1  History  of  the  Theatres  of  London  and  Dublin,  i,  23-25. 


40  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

a  Vagrant,  the  natural  Question  then  follows, 
Why  was  Harper  singled  out  f  A  Man  known  for 
many  YSars  to  be  a  Housekeeper  in  the  Parish  of 
St  Paul's,  Covent  Garden  ;  when  there  were  sev- 
eral more  Eminent  Comedians  in  that  Company, 
that  constantly  acted  at  both  our  Fairs,  and  were 
not  Housekeepers !  But  the  Dice  were  thrown, 
and  the  poor  new  Manager  devoted  to  Ruin." 
In  a  footnote  to  the  foregoing  argument,  the 
author,  referring  to  the  legal  grounds  on  which 
Harper  was  dismissed  (as  rejjorted  by  Cibber), 
says,  "  I  have  been  well  informed,  Mr.  Cibber 
was  mistaken  in  his  Observation  on  the  Plead- 
ings in  Court  at  that  Trial,  that  so  far  from  the 
Housekeeper  being  a  protection  from  the  va- 
grant Act,  a  learned  Councellor  asserted,  that 
it  was  in  the  Power  of  the  greatest  Subject  in 
England  to  be  guilty  of  an  Act  of  Vagrancy  ; 
and  that  the  only  point  to  be  disputed  there  was, 
whether  Harper's  performing  in  the  Hayraarket 
Theatre  was  committing  that  Act?" 

Only  on  personal  grounds  can  we  explain 
Gibber's  friendly  attitude  towards  an  avowed 
enemy  of  patent  rights,  for  he  may  usually  be 
found  arrayed  on  the  side  of  the  theatrical  mo- 
nopoly. At  any  rate,  soon  after  the  close  of 
Harper's  trial,  Highmore  sold  out  his  interest  in 
the  Drury  Lane  Theatre  to  Charles  Fleetwood, 
Esquire,  to  whose  standard  the  revolters  soon 


HAYMARKET  AND  GOODMAN'S   FIELDS    41 

returned,  after  they  had  closed  their  season  at 
the  Haymarket  on  the  9th  of  March,  1734, 
oj^ening  at  Drury  Lane  on  the  12th  of  the  same 
month.^  The  circumstance  of  Gibber's  revolt 
and  Harper's  trial  brings  out  the  fact  that  the 
patentees  had  determined  to  adopt  some  policy 
whereby  they  might  defend  the  rights  claimed 
by  them  under  the  grants  of  Charles  II.  It 
shows,  also,  that  there  was  a  growing  practical 
opposition  to  the  theatrical  monopoly,  which  the 
King's  officers  seemed  unable  to  brook,  either 
because  the  legal  aspects  of  the  question  were 
indistinctly  understood,  or  because  of  the  popu- 
lar outcry  against  all  appearance  of  servitude. 
It  is  not  sufficient  to  account  for  the  result  of 
the  two  trials  in  this  case  on  the  grounds  of 
Highmore's  aristocratic  hauteur;  Theophilus 
Gibber's  notoriously  contemptible  character  was 
enough  to  turn  that  scale.  The  fact  is,  as  was 
frequently  iterated  during  the  period,  that  the 
patents  were  no  longer  held  in  high  regard,  and 
the  crown  prerogative  in  theatrical  amusements 
was  openly  doubted.  Had  not  the  revolt  of  1733 
directly  affected    the  treasuries    of    the    patent 

^  According  to  Victor  (i,  26),  Fleetwood  purchased  the  whole 
of  the  Drury  Lane  patent ;  according  to  Cibber  (Apology,  p. 
231),  only  five  sixths  of  it.  The  latter  is  probably  correct,  as  it 
appears  that  Giffard  was  still  a  partner  at  Drury  Lane  in  Au- 
gust, 1735.    (Genest,  iii,  iOG,  471,  472.) 


42  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

houses,  it  is  doubtful  whether  their  managers 
would  have  thought  of  attempting  to  enforce 
the  Vagrant  Act. 

If  the  victory  won  in  the  Harper  case  had 
been  turned  to  the  best  account  by  the  promo- 
ters of  indei^endent  theatres,  it  is  barely  possi- 
ble that  the  struggle  of  a  century's  duration  to 
free  the  metropolis  from  the  worst  features  of  a 
theatrical  monopoly  might  have  been  averted. 
But  something  like  an  overweening  audacity 
was  bred  by  the  result  of  that  trial,  and  what 
before  had  been  but  the  doubtful  assertion  of 
free  competition  became  now  an  avowed  license 
for  all  sorts  of  extravagances.  Henry  Fielding, 
who  for  some  years  had  been  writing  farces  and 
burlesques  for  the  stage,  saw  the  opportunity 
which  the  outcome  of  the  revolters'  trial  and 
the  success  of  the  Goodman's  Fields  Theatre 
opened  to  him  to  launch  out  on  a  theatrical  ven- 
ture on  his  own  account.  Some  time  after  the 
return  of  the  seceders  to  Drury  Lane,  Fielding 
organized  his  famous  Great  Mogul  Company 
and  took  possession  of  the  Little  Haymarket 
Theatre,  where  he  brought  out  his  three-act  com- 
edy, Don  Quixote  in  England^  which  had  been 
begun  for  the  Drury  Lane  stage.*    During  the 

^  Genest,  iii,  435.  For  an  account  of  Fielding's  Haymarket 
Theatre  and  the  Act  of  1737,  see  Gibber's  Apology,  p.  231  ;  Vic- 
tor, i,  26,  GO  £e ;  Genest,  iii,  40C  ff ;  Dibdin,  iv,  709  tf ;  Baker's 


HAYMARKET   AND   GOODMAN'S   FIELDS     43 

season  of  1736,  the  political  satire,  Pasquin^  had 
a  run  of  fifty  nights  at  the  Hay  market.  The  next 
year,  a  number  of  Fielding's  satires  and  bur- 
lesques were  put  on ;  Tumble-down  Dick^  or 
Phaeton  in  the  Suds,  was  written  to  ridicule 
theatrical  entertainments  of  the  times  in  general, 
and,  in  particular,  The  Pall  of  Phaeton,  which 
was  acted  at  Drury  Lane,  March  1,  1736.  Not 
only  was  Drury  Lane  satirized  in  the  piece,  but 
also  the  management  of  Covent  Garden ;  in  the 
dedication  Fielding  returned  his  compliments  to 
Mr.  John  Lun  (i.  e.  John  Rich)  for  the  latter's 
Marforio,  a  satire  on  Pasqiiin.  In  the  "  His- 
torical Register  for  1736,"  Fielding  combined 
theatrical  and  political  satire.  "  Quidam  "  was 
supposed  to  take  off  Sir  Robert  Walpole ;  the 
ridiculous  contention  between  Mrs.  Clive  and 
Mrs.  Gibber  for  the  part  of  "  Polly  "  was  alluded 
to  in  the  second  act ;  and  Golley  Gibber's  pre- 
sumptuous alterations  of  Shakespeare's  plays 
wei*e  unmercifully,  but  justly,  scoi-ed. 

Fielding's  fire  proved  entirely  too  hot  for  the 
ranks  against  which  it  was  aimed.  Furthermore^ 
no  discriminations  were  made  in  the  exposition 
of  corruption,  —  the  Prime  Minister  was  placed 

Siographia  Dramatica,  p.  xii,  and  vol.  ii,  13S ;  Life  of  Quin,  ch. 
V  (London,  1766) ;  Prompter;  Grub  Street  Journal ;  Gentleman'' s 
Magazine ;  Town  and  Country  Magazine ;  London  Magazine ; 
Common  Sense,  1737 ;  Craftsman,  1737  j  Historical  MSS.  Com- 
mission. 


44  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

on  a  level  with  Harlequin  of  Covent  Garden. 
Most  offensive  of  all,  his  satires  and  burlesques 
hit  too  near  the  mark  of  truth  to  be  long"  with- 
stood unflinchingly.  The  report  of  the  Secret 
Committee,  appointed  by  the  government  to  in- 
vestigate the  criticisms  of  the  satires,  revealed 
the  fact  that  Fielding  had  not  exaggerated.*  At 
any  rate,  some  means  had  to  be  devised  to  put  a 
stop  to  this  satiric  license,  which  might  degener- 
ate into  licentiousness  at  any  time.  The  appear-  /  ^ 
ance  of  The  Golden  Rump  gave  the  opportunity  j/ 
to  the  goverment  for  interfering  with  the  abuse 
into  which  the  theatre  was  rapidly  drifting.  This 
was  a  two-act  farce,  containing  the  most  pointed 
sarcasm  on  the  King  and  his  ministers.  The 
author  was  unknown,  the  piece  never  appeared 
in  print ;  but  a  suspicion  was  current  at  the 
time  that  it  had  been  composed  at  the  dictation 
of  Walpole  himself,  as  the  most  direct  way  of 
silencing  Fielding  and  other  political  satirists 
of  the  day.^  This  view  is  strengthened  by  sub- 
sequent events  connected  with  the  history  of  the 
piece.  The  little  farce  was  sent  to  Giffard  of 
Goodman's  Fields,  who  had,  it  was  thought, 
made  Sir    Robert    his    enemy    by   representing 

1  J.  Ralph,  The  Case  of  our  Present  Theatrical  Disputes,  p. 
43,  London,  1743. 

^  See  Town  and  Country  Magazine  for  October,  1787,  p. 
467. 


HAYMARKET  AND   GOODMAN'S  FIELDS    45 

pieces  on  his  stage  inimical  to  the  character  and 
interests  of  the  minister.  If  the  satire  was  sent 
to  Giffard  to  entrap  him  into  acting  it,  the  snare 
did  not  work,  for  he  at  once  forwarded  a  copy 
to  Walpole,  who  laid  it  before  the  King.  The 
result  of  this  episode  was  a  recommendation  to 
Parliament  to  pass  a  bill  to  regulate  and  restrict 
the  stage.  This  was  the  famous  Licensing  Act, 
or,  as  Genest  characterizes  it,  the  "gagging  bill  C-^ 
for  the  stage."  It  passed  Parliament  June  21, 
1737,  and  is  of  such  importance  as  to  require 
separate  treatment. 


CHAPTER    III 

THE   LICENSING   ACT  ;    THE    CAUSES   PRODUCING   IT, 

AND    THE    ATTEMPTS    TO    REGULATE    THE    STAGE 

BEFORE    THE    PASSAGE    OF    THAT   ACT 

"  To  Henry  F-d-g  then  are  we  indebted  for  the  licencing  act,  and 
the  theatrical  power  that  is  now  lodged  in  the  licenser."  —  Life  of  Mr. 
James  Qiiin,  London,  17G6,  ch.  v,  p.  27. 

THE  above  quotation  contains  the  statement 
of  a  belief  which  was  universally  current 
in  the  eighteenth  century,  and  has  continued 
down  to  our  time.  Colley  Gibber  is,  in  a  large 
degree,  responsible  for  this  opinion,  for  writers 
have  followed  his  account  of  the  transactions  of 
the  period  under  consideration.  But  it  is  well 
known  that  Gibber  had  cause  for  prejudice 
against  Fielding,  since  the  latter  had  lampooned 
the  Gibber  family  pretty  severely  in  the  "  His- 
torical Register  for  1736;"  and  hence,  though 
the  "  Apology  "  is  generally  fair,  in  this  partic- 
ular case  allowance  must  be  made  for  the  vin- 
dictive spirit  in  which  the  account  is  written. 
Gibber  nowhere  deigns  to  mention  Fielding  by 
name,  but  alludes  to  him  as  "  a  broken  wit." 
"This  enterj^rising  Person,"  so  runs  the  spite- 
ful narrative  in  the  "Apology,"  "this  enterpris- 


THE   LICENSING   ACT  47 

ing  Person,  I  say  (whom  I  do  uot  cliuse  to  name, 
vmless  it  could  be  to  his  Advantage,  or  that  it 
were  of  Importance)  had  Sense  enough  to  know 
that  the  best  Plays,  with  bad  Actors,  would 
turn  but  to  a  very  poor  Account ;  and  therefore 
found  it  necessary  to  give  the  Publick  some 
Pieces  of  an  extraordinary  Kind,  the  Poetry  of 
which  he  conceiv'd  ought  to  be  so  strong,  that 
the  greatest  Dunce  of  an  Actor  could  not  spoil 
it:  Pie  knew  too,  that  as  he  was  in  haste  to  get 
Money,  it  would  take  up  less  time  to  be  in- 
trepidly abusive,  than  decently  entertaining ; 
that,  to  draw  the  Mob  after  him,  he  must  rake 
the  Channel,  and  pelt  their  Superiors  ;  that,  to 
show  himself  somebody,  he  must  come  up  to 
JuvenaVs  Advice,  and  stand  the  Consequence : 

Avde  aliquid  brevibus  Gyaris,  ^  carcere  dignum 
Si  vis  esse  aliquis  —  Juv.  Sat.  I. 

Such    then,    was    the    mettlesome    Modesty    he 

set  out  with  ;  upon  this  Principle  he  produc'd 

several  frank,  and  free  Farces,  that  seem'd  to 

knock  all  Distinctions  of  Mankind  on  the  Head : 

Religion,  Laws,  Government,  Priests,  Judges,  and 

Ministers,  were  all  laid  flat,  at  the  Feet  of  this 

Herculean  Satyrist !    This  Drawcansir  in  Wit, 

that  spared  neither   Friend    nor  Foe !  who,  to 

make  his  Poetical  Fame  immortal,  like  another 

Erostratus^  set  Fire  to  his  Stage,  by  writing  up 

to  an  Act  of  Parliament  to  demolish  it.    I  shall 


48  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

not  give  the  particular  Strokes  of  his  Ingenuity 
a  Chance  to  be  remembered,  by  reciting  them ; 
it  may  be  enough  to  say,  in  general  Terms,  they 
were  so  openly  flagrant,  that  the  Wisdom  of  the 
Legislature  thought  it  high  time,  to  take  a  proper 
Notice  of  them."  Victor,  writing  a  few  years 
after  the  "Apology  "  was  penned,  Baker,  Dibdin, 
and  subsequent  students  of  the  stage,  substan- 
tially agree  with  Gibber  that  Fielding's  satires 
were  the  cause  of  the  Licensing  Act. 

While  no  one  will  doubt  that  the  severity  of 
Fielding's  satires  was  the  occasion  for  precipitat- 
ing the  action  of  the  government  in  restricting  the 
stage,  to  say  that  Henry  Fielding  was  solely  re- 
sponsible for  that  Act  of  Parliament  —  without 
materially  modifying  the  statement  —  would  be 
rash,  to  say  the  least.  For  the  tendencies  at 
work  at  the  time,  which  called  forth  the  biting 
sarcasm  of  the  great  satirist,  would,  ultimately, 
have  brought  about  the  regulation  of  the  stage, 
irrespective  of  Fielding's  influence.  It  is  my 
purpose  in  this  chapter  to  trace  those  tendencies, 
as  well  as  the  attempts  made  to  counteract  them, 
prior  to  the  Licensing  Act. 

It  is  not  easy,  nor  always  possible,  to  point  to 
a  definite  beginning  of  a  tendency  of  thought, 
for  the  psychology  of  "movements"  is  too  elu- 
sive to  be  tabulated  in  statistical  form.  But  it  is 
safe  to  say  that  the  political   tracts  and  pam- 


THE  LICENSING  ACT  49 

phlets  of  the  time,  the  satires  and  burlesques, 
criticising  government,  had  their  origin  in  the 
opposition  to  the  pohcy  and  methods  of  the  Whig 
Ministry  of  Sir  Robert  Walpole.  The  means 
sometimes  used  by  that  great  statesman  to  main- 
tain his  hold  on  King  and  Commons,  however 
praiseworthy  the  end  aimed  at,  would  have  been, 
at  any  period  of  modern  England,  the  target 
for  political  foes  ;  while  the  more  serious  mistakes 
(such  as  the  methods  employed  in  the  attempt 
to  pass  the  Excise  Bill,  1733)  were  the  occasions 
of  a  perfect  volley  of  scathing  abuse.  Even 
within  the  ranks  of  the  Whigs  themselves,  the 
Walpole  Ministry  was  not  always  safe  from 
attacks  of  the  severest  kind.  Indeed,  the  great 
financier  and  advocate  of  peace  could  trace  his 
final  downfall  to  internal  dissensions  in  his  own 
party,  as  much  as,  or  more  than,  to  the  strength 
of  the  Tories. 

It  was  the  most  natural  thing  imaginable  for 
the  stage  to  make  stock  of  the  political  foibles 
of  the  period,  and  the  Beggar  s  Opera  marks 
the  beginning  of  that  species  of  dramatic  satire 
which  reached  its  climax  in  Henry  Fielding  and 
the   Licensing  Act.^    Soon  after   the   accession 

1  In  the  Craftsman,  No.  569  (May  28,  1737),  appears  an 
essay  alleging  that  the  satirical  attacks  on  the  government 
began  in  "  Pamphlets,  Poems,  Journals,"  and  afterwards  "  Pros- 
tituted the  Stage."  See  also  Gentleman's  Magazine,  May,  1737. 


50  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

of  George  II,  Gay's  burlesque  was  brought  out 
(January  29,  1728).  It  was  immediately  as- 
sailed as  "  the  most  venemous  allegorical  libel 
against  the  Government  that  hath  appeared  for 
many  years.  .  .  .  The  satirical  strokes  upon  Min- 
isters^ Courtiers,  and  great  Men,  in  general, 
abound  in  every  Part  of  this  most  insolent 
Performance."  ^  In  adition  to  the  charge  of 
"  seditious  design,"  contained  in  this  farce,  it 
was  said  to  encourage  street  robberies.^ 

The  success  of  the  Beggar'' s  Opera^  induced 
Colley  Gibber  to  attempt  something  of  the  same 
nature,  and,  the  next  year,  Love  in  a  Riddle 
appeared,  only  to  be  roundly  damned.  "  It  was 
then  generally  thought,"  writes  the  biographer 
of  Quin,  "  that  his  [i.  e.  Gibber's]  jealousy  of 
Gay,  and  the  high  opinion  he  entertained  of  his 
new  piece,  had  operated  so  strongly,  as  to  make 
him  set  every  engine  in  motion  to  get  the  sequel 
of  the  Beggar's  Opera,  called  Polly,  suppressed, 
in  order  to  engross  the  town  entirely  to  Love 

1  Craftsman,  No.  85,  February  17,  1727-28. 

2  Ibid.  No.  87. 

*  The  Beggar^  s  Opera  was  so  successful  that  a  company 
actually  ventured  to  Jamaica  with  it,  where  they  are  reported 
to  have  taken  in  370  pistoles  (about  $1450)  at  the  door  the  first 
uight.  The  climate  of  the  island,  however,  was  so  insalubrious 
that  "within  the  space  of  two  months  they  buried  their  third 
Polly,  and  two  of  their  men."  —  Chetwood,  History  of  the  Stage, 
pp.  40, 41. 


THE  LICENSING  ACT  51 

in  a  Riddled  This  bit  of  gossip  may,  or  may 
uot,  be  true  ;  but,  at  any  rate,  the  Lord  Cham- 
berlain absolutely  prohibited  Polly  from  being 
presented,  after  it  had  been  rehearsed  and  was 
just  ready  to  come  out. 

This  method  of  political  satire,  which  began 
in  pamphlets  and  journals,  became  so  popular 
that  the  plays  of  the  day  contained  repeated 
invectives  against  men  of  high  position  and 
authority  in  the  state  ;  so  much  so,  indeed,  that 
some,  who  otherwise  were  in  favor  of  a  free 
stage,  felt  the  necessity  of  some  sort  of  censor- 
ship, and  went  so  far  as  to  propose  the  appoint- 
ment of  a  committee  to  expurgate  objectionable 
passages  from  dramatic  pieces.^ 

Other  complaints  than  that  the  theatres  were 
going  too  far  in  their  abuse  of  government 
were  brought  against  the  stage.  "  Avarice,  Inso- 
lence, and  Stupidity  "  were  epithets  applied  to 
the  Cibber-Booth-Wilks  management  of  Drury 
^iane,  in  their  treatment  of  dramatic  writers  ; 
and  Rich  of  the  other  patent  house  escaped  but 
little  better.  Of  the  latter  it  was  asserted  that 
"  poets  .  .  .  must  submit  to  have  their  work 
mangled  by  a  Tumbler  who  can't  spell,  and 
truckle  to  the  ipse  dixit  of  an  assuming  igno- 
rant Harlequin.   The  Vanity  of  W ks^   the 

Pertness   of     C r,    and    the   Arrogance   of 

1  Craftsman,  No.  140. 


52  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

B A,^  they  have  found  united  in  one  single 

Fellow  without  any  of  the  good  Qualities  of  the 
other  to  atone  for  them."  ^ 

Such  treatment  as  this,  it  was  claimed,  de- 
terred the  best  writers  from  offering  their  pro- 
ductions to  the  stage,  thereby  leaving  that 
function  to  low-grade  dramatists,  who  lowered 
public  taste  and  the  dignity  of  the  profession. 
Once  more,  as  in  the  early  days  of  competition 
between  the  patent  houses,  the  legitimate  drama 
was  allowed  to  decline,  and  pantomime,  puppet- 
show,  and  operas  with  their  "sing-song  con- 
certs "  without  sense  or  plot,  were  substituted 
instead.  Aaron  Hill,  editor  of  the  "  Prompter," 
waged  an  incessant  warfare  against  the  man- 
agers of  theatres  for  permitting  and  fostering 
buffoonery  in  the  place  of  the  regular  drama. 
In  addition  to  banishing  common  sense  from 
the  stage,  the  managers  were  accused  of  don- 
ning "  party  coloured  caps  "  in  their  competition, 
while  "  in  respect  of  the  French  Harlequin  at  the 
Little  Theatre  in  the  Haymarket,"  the  national 
drama  was  sure  to  suffer,  if  the  middle  gentry 
and  their  children  persisted  in  following  the  lead 

1  Wilks,  Gibber,  and  Booth. 

2  "Tag-Rhime"  in  Daily  Courant  for  February  26,  1732. 
Quoted  in  Gentleman' s  Magazine,  February,  17o2.  See  also 
Grub  Street  Journal,  Nos.  112  and  115.  In  the  latter,  "  Prosai- 
cus  "  defends  Rich,  and  insinuates  that  "  Tag--Rhime  "  was 
associated  with  the  Drury  Lane  interests. 


THE   LICENSING  ACT  53 

of  "  people  of  Quality "  in  learning  French  for 
the  purpose  of  understanding  such  foolery.^  The 
degeneracy  and  immorality  of  the  English  stage, 
due  to  "  selfish  management  of  actors,  vicious 
performances,  and  a  debauched  public  taste," 
was  the  subject  of  contempt  and  scorn  for  more 
than  one  moralist.  "  All  our  theatres  put  to- 
gether," breaks  out  one  of  these,  "  could  not 
furnish  out  one  perfect  company."^  The  silen- 
cing of  some  of  the  theatres  was  declared  to  be 
the  only  means  left  to  protect  public  morals  and 
save  the  dramatic  art.  Speculation  in  amuse- 
ments had  developed  into  "  theatrical  madness," 
and  it  was  "  high  time  that  the  stage  should  be 
opposed  "  by  parliamentary  interference. 

As  early  as  1732,  the  evil  tendencies  into  which 
the  theatres  were  drifting  and  the  necessity  for 
regulating  them  were  pointed  out.  The  reason 
alleged  for  the  deplorable  condition  was  that 
theatres  had  been  allowed  to  be  conducted  at 
random  without  regard  to  the  merit  or  qualifi- 
cation of  theatrical  managers.  It  was  this  open 
trade  in  theatricals  which  had  substituted  farce 
and  pantomime  for  Shakespeare  and  Otway.^ 
The  author  of  "  A  Proposal  for  the  Regulation 

^    Prompter,  No.  13,  December  9,  1734. 

2  Universal  Spectator,  No.  340,  April  12,  1735.  Quoted  in 
Gentleman' s  Magazine,  April,  1735. 

^  A  Proposal  for  the  Regulation  of  the  Stage,  an  essay,  p.  21. 
London,  1732. 


54  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

of  the  Stage  "  did  not  spare  either  of  the  pa- 
tentees from  the  arraignment.  The  essayist, 
while  disavowing  any  aim  to  dispossess  the  two 
houses  (Drury  Lane  and  Covent  Garden)  of  their 
patents,  advocated  the  erection  of  a  new  theatre 
"on  a  quite  different  establishment."  "Theirs 
[the  patentees']  is  confined  to  their  own  advan- 
tage, this  [the  essayist's  proposed  theatre]  is 
calculated  for  the  good  of  the  publick,  for  the 
encouragement  of  learning,  the  improvement  of 
politness,  and  the  honour  of  the  age."  All  the 
details  of  the  plan  of  this  proposed  new  theatre 
are  set  forth  at  length,  from  the  raising  of  the 
funds  to  the  writing  and  dressing  of  the  plays 
for  representation.  The  main  idea  of  the  plan 
was  that  a  national  theatre  should  not  be  run 
by  private  speculators,  as  were  the  two  patent 
houses  and  the  other  theatres,  but  solely  for  the 
purpose  of  encouraging  the  dramatic  and  histri- 
onic arts.  The  plan  is  of  the  greatest  significance 
as  being  the  earliest  of  its  kind  and  as  contain- 
ing the  germ  of  the  third  theatre  arguments  of 
the  next  century.  By  third  theatre  is  meant, 
of  course,  a  third  theatre  under  the  protection  of 
government. 

Other  schemes  for  the  relief  of  the  dramatic 
situation  were  not  wanting.  In  the  summer  of 
1733,  Exeter  'Change  was  advertised  for  sale, 
and  it  was  suggested  that  the  building  be  pur- 


THE  LICENSING  ACT  55 

chased  and  maintained  by  endowment  as  a  the- 
atrical college  to  "  encourage  virtue,  discounte- 
nance vice,  advance  education,  and  be  the  means 
of  perfecting  theatrical  entertainments  .  .  .  ,"  so 
that  "  foreigners  would  not  find  our  theatres, 
which  should  be  fountains  of  wit,  fountains  of 
folly." ' 

But  nothing  came  of  these  plans,  and  the  vices 
complained  of  continued.  It  was  the  opinion  of 
most  men  that  nothing  short  of  parliamentary 
action  could  remedy  the  evils  then  possessing 
the  theatres  in  London,  and,  early  in  1733,  a 
bill  for  that  purpose  was  introduced  into  the 
lower  house.  In  a  letter  from  the  Hon.  Charles 
Howard  to  Lord  Carlisle,  dated  May  24,  1733, 
mention  is  made  of  such  a  bill  in  the  House  of 
Commons  "  to  regulate  the  playhouses."  On  its 
first  reading,  there  was  "a  debate  of  about  two 
hours  upon  it,  but  no  Division,"  ^  and  nothing 
came  of  this  attempt. 

A  far  more  vig-orous  effort  was  made  to  check 
the  current  when,  on  the  5th  of  March,  1735,  Sir 
John  Barnard  asked  leave  to  bring  a  bill  into  the 
House  of  Commons  to  restrain  the  number  and 
scandalous    abuses  of   the  London   playhouses. 

^  Grub  Street  Journal,  July  5,  1733  ;  Gentleman's  Magazine, 
July,  1733. 

2  Historical  MSS.  Com.  EeportXIV^,  p.  115.  I  have  found 
this  mentioned  in  no  other  place. 


66  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

He  represented,  in  particular,  the  mischief  done 
by  them  to  the  metropolis  "  by  corrupting  of 
youth,  encouraging  vice,  and  debauchery,  and 
greatly  prejudicing  industry  and  trade."  The 
immediate  occasion  of  Barnard's  bill  was  the 
projection  of  a  new  theatre  in  St.  Martin's  le 
Grand. ^  When  Barnard's  motion  was  read,  it 
was  reported  that  many  in  the  House  "  seemed 
to  smile."  However,  Sir  John  was  seconded  by 
a  number  of  gentlemen,  including  Sir  liobert 
Walpole  ;  and  although  the  motion  was  "  at  first 
received  with  a  sort  of  disdain,"  at  length  its 
supporters  were  numerous,  and  "  it  was  spoke 
for  both  by  young  and  old." 

The  speech  of  James  Erskine,  on  this  occa- 
sion, is  especially  interesting.  The  half  dozen 
London  playhouses,  he  declared,  had  brought  a 
change  for  the  worse  to  the  British  temper, 
"  which,  though  cheerful  and  facetious  formerly, 
yet  was  sedate  and  solid  ;  but  now  so  extrava- 
gantly addicted  to  lewd  and  idle  diversions,  that 
the  number  of  Play-Houses  in  London  was  double 
to  that  in  Paris ;  so  that  now  we  exceed  in  lev- 
ity our  fluttering,  fiddling  masters  the  French," 
whence  came  these  follies  "  and  many  other  im- 

^  Aaron  Hill  scouted  this  idea,  thinking  it  to  be  only  a  strata- 
gem of  one  of  the  patentees  to  alarm  and  incense  the  magis- 
trates to  destroy  the  lesser  establishments.  Prompter,  No.  liv, 
May  13, 1735. 


THE   LICENSING  ACT  57 

pertinencies."  Mr.  Erskine  greatly  deplored  the 
fact  that "  Italian  eunuchs  and  signoras  should 
have  set  salaries  equal  to  those  of  the  Lords  of 
the  Treasury  and  Judges  of  England,  besides 
tlie  vast  gains  which  these  animals  make  by  pre- 
sents ...  so  that  they  carry  away  with  them 
sums  sufficient  to  purchase  estates  in  their  own 
country,  where  their  wisdom  for  it  is  as  much 
esteemed,  as  our  vanity  and  foolish  extrava- 
gance laughed  at  and  despised."  The  speech  had 
the  desired  effect,  and  leave  was  given  to  bring 
in  a  bill  "  for  the  restraining  the  number  of 
Houses  for  playing  Interludes,  and  for  the  bet- 
ter regulating  common  Players." 

A  month  later  (April  3),  the  bill  was  read  for 
the  first  time  and  ordered  to  its  second  reading. 
But  it  was  not  destined  to  reach  its  final  read- 
ing without  serious  obstacles.  One  clause  in  the 
bill  provided  that  "  no  person  or  persons  shall 
act,  represent,  or  perform  any  tragedy,  comedy, 
opera,  play,  farce,  or  other  entertainment  of  the 
Stage,  for  gain,  hire,  or  reward,  other  than,  and 
except  such  person  or  persons  in  whom  the  right 
of  property  in  and  to  the  said  Letters  Patent, 
granted  as  aforesaid,  to  the  said  Thomas  Killi- 
grue.  Sir  William  Davenant,  Robert  Wilks, 
Colley  Gibber,  and  Barton  Booth  ...  is  vested, 
and  their  respective  deputies  or  servants,  dur- 
ing the  continuance  of  the  process  and  privi- 


58  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

leges  of  them  by  their  several  Letters  Patents 
respectively  granted."  The  injustice  of  this  part 
of  the  bill  to  actors  appeared  in  "•  The  Case  of 
the  Comedians  of  the  Theatres  Royal  Drury 
Lane  and  Covent  Garden."  This,  it  was  pointed 
out,  would  subject  actors  to  the  arbitrary  will 
of  any  one  happening  to  own  one  of  the  patents, 
reducing  them  to  the  hard  terms  and  indignity 
of  being  bought  and  sold  as  oxen.  To  remedy 
this  evil,  should  the  bill  become  a  law,  a  board 
of  arbitration  was  proposed,  to  act  as  an  im- 
partial court  in  all  disputes  between  the  pa- 
tentees and  the  actors.  It  was  thought  wholly 
unfair  to  authors  and  actors  alike  to  place  the 
maintenance  of  the  stage  within  the  control  of 
caprice,  or  the  possible  ignorance  of  any  one  who 
might  look  upon  a  theatrical  patent  merely  as 
a  proper  security  in  which  to  invest  his  money.^ 
If  this  complaint  was  new  in  1735,  it  was  to  be 
heard  many  times  and  oft  before  the  evil  feared 
was  corrected.  It  is  noteworthy,  this  modern 
view  put  forward  in  1735,  that  the  profession 
of  the  actors  was  an  investment  as  much  to  be 
protected  as  the  rights  of  the  patentees. 

A  "-vagrant  "  amendment,   and   others,  also 

^  Prompter,  No.  xlv,  April  15,  1735.  HiU  -was  in  favor  of 
stage  regulation,  but  lie  denied  that  restricting  the  number  of 
playhouses  ■would  at  all  correct  the  evil.  The  regulation,  he 
thought,  should  be  of  the  management.  Subsequent  events 
proved  Hill  a  level-headed  critic. 


THE   LICENSING  ACT  59 

brought  vigorous  objections  to  the  bill ;  but  its 
doom  was  sealed  in  the  proposal  to  insert  a 
clause  to  confirm  (if  not  to  enlarge)  the  power 
of  the  Lord  Chamberlain  over  the  players.  This 
was  carrying  the  question  of  restriction  farther 
than  the  promoters  of  the  bill  were  willing  to  go. 
The  power  of  the  Lord  Chamberlain  was  thought 
too  great  already,  or  at  least  it  had  been  too 
widely  exercised  on  occasion  (notably  in  prohib- 
iting Polly  and  Calista  from  being  acted).  It 
was  therefore  deemed  advisable  to  postpone  the 
attempt  to  pass  a  bill  such  as  that  originally 
contemplated,  rather  than  to  establish  by  law  a 
power  which  might  be  exercised  in  an  arbitrary 
manner,  accompanied,  it  might  be,  by  mischiev- 
ous results.  For  this  reason,  the  bill  was  sud- 
denly withdrawn  on  the  30th  of  April  (1735), 
and  the  whole  question  left  open  for  discussion 
and  for  settlement  at  some  future  time.^ 

It  was  at  this  juncture  that  Henry  Fielding 
saw  his  opportunity,  and,  taking  advantage  of 
the  foibles  about  him  in  state  and  society,  ap- 
plied his  genius  to  them  with  a  success  scarcely 
dreamed  of.  And  here  it  should  be  observed 
that  the  great  satirist  had  no  special  motives 
against  government ;  he  used  the  materials  he 

^  The  proceedings  on  Barnard's  Bill  are  reported  in  Cob- 
bett's  Parliamentary  History  of  England,  vol.  ix,  cols.  944- 
948.   See  also  Parliamentary  Register,  vol.  ix,  p.  93. 


60  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

found  ready-made  for  the  exercise  of  his  talent 
and  for  his  business  interests.  The  low  condi- 
tion of  the  London  stage  itself,  quite  as  much 
as  the  subject-matter  of  his  political  satires,  ac- 
counts for  his  success  at  the  Little  Theatre  in 
the  Ilaymarket ;  and  this  fact,  which  was  then, 
and  is  still,  generally  overlooked,  was  clearly 
recognized  by  the  best  critic  of  the  time.  "  The 
very  great  Run  Pasqu'in  has  already  had,  and 
is  still  like  to  have,"  declares  the  acute  editor 
of  the  "  Prompter  "  (No.  xlvii),  "  is  the  severest 
Blow  that  cou'd  be  given  to  our  Theatres,  and 
the  strongest  Confirmation  of  an  Opinion  I  have 
ventured  singly^  to  advance,  viz.  That  the  Stage 
may  (and  as  it  may,  ought  to)  he  supported 
without  Pantomimer  While  the  patent  houses, 
with  all  necessary  facilities  for  acting  the  legit- 
imate drama,  were  competing  in  spectacle  and 
dumb  show,  "  a  Gentleman,  under  the  disadvan- 
tage of  a  very  bad  House,  with  scarce  an  Actor, 
and  at  very  little  Expense,  by  the  single  Power 
of  Satire,  Wit,  and  Co7nmon  Sense,  has  been 
able  to  run  a  play  on  for  24  Nights,  which  is 
now  but  beginning  to  rise  in  the  Opinion  of  the 
Town."  Pasquin  reached  fifty  nights  before  it 
was  taken  off.  Hill  saw  that  the  work  of  Fielding 
was  sure  to  bring  about  a  speedy  reorganiza- 
tion of  the  whole  theatrical  business  in  London, 
and  he  encouraged  the  effort  with  all  his  might. 


THE  LICENSING  ACT  CI 

His  main  objection  to  the  satires  was  that  they 
were  not  plain  enough,  that  they  should  be  more 
"  in  the  Carreggio  Manner.'''' 

As  might  be  expected,  it  was  Fielding's  scur- 
rilous attacks  upon  the  follies  of  government 
on  which  men's  opinions  differed.  Some  main- 
tained  that  a  system  of  lettres  de  cachet  and  the 
Bastile  should  be  practiced  in  England  against 
those  who  dared  question  the  affairs  of  state.  To 
which  it  was  retorted  by  the  thorough-blood 
Briton  :  "  What  do  you  intend  by  mentioning 
these?  I  hope  not  to  threaten  us  nor  to  insinu- 
ate that  nothing  will  make  it  necessary  to  intro- 
duce such  damned  Engines  of  Tyranny  among 
us."  ^  Men  of  the  latter  turn  of  mind  believed 
that  satire  on  government  had  a  beneficial  ef- 
fect, and,  though  they  would  not  contend  that 
all  government  was  a  farce  to  be  satirized,  nev- 
ertheless, they  asserted  that  greatness  combined 
with  meanness  is  the  essence  of  burlesque. 

But  there  was  a  third  interest  at  stake  in  the 
controversy,  namely,  the  question  of  decency 
and  morality.  So  long  as  vice  and  corruption 
merely  were  satirized,  men  might  argue  till  the 
crack  of  doom  on  the  question  of  liberty  and 
tyranny ;  but  so   soon  as  society's  sense  of  re- 

^  Correspondence  in  Gazetteer  for  May  7,  1737,  and  Com- 
mon Sense  for  May  21,  1737  ;  quoted  in  London  Magazine  for 
May,  1737. 


62  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

spectability  was  offended  by  the  method  of  sat- 
ire, it  was  time  to  close  the  discussion  and  erect 
the  proper  safeguards.  And  this  is  exactly  what 
happened ;  as  soon  as  the  novelty  of  burlesque 
itself  wore  off,  the  low  public  taste  had  to  be 
stimulated,  and  the  manner,  the  language,  of 
satire  was  degraded  for  the  purpose.  In  unprin- 
cipled and  irresponsible  hands  —  and  free  com- 
petition had  realized  this  possibility  by  1737  — 
there  was  no  limit  to  this  tendency.  "  Satyr 
without  scurrility,"  says  one  of  the  speakers  in 
A  Dialogue  between  the  most  Eminent  Players 
in  the  Shades,  "  never  failed  of  a  warm  decep- 
tion, but  of  late  such  an  Inundation  of  Immor- 
ality, Scandal,  and  unbounded  Licentiousness 
had  overwhelmed  it,  that  loudly  called  upon  the 
Legislature  for  Reformation."  ^  When  this  stage 
was  reached,^  the  remedy  was  at  hand,  sure  and 

^  Theatrical  Correspondence  in  Death.  An  Epistle  from  Mrs. 
Oldjield,  in  the  Shades,  to  Mrs.  Br  .  .  ceg  .  .  die,  upon  Earth  ; 
Containing  a  Dialogue  between  the  Most  Eminent  Players  in  the 
Shades,  upon  the  late  Stage  Desertation.   London,  1743. 

2  "  They  [i.  e.  the  satirists]  proceeded  so  far  at  last,  that 
a  Farce  was  actually  in  Rehearsal,  at  one  of  our  Theatres,  in 
which  the  same  excellent  Person  [in  the  Government]  was  to 
have  been  introduced  on  the  stage,  as  we  are  informed,  with 
a  Pair  of  Scales  in  one  Hand,  to  Scandalize  his  Office  and 
lugging  uji  his  Breeches,  to  reflect  upon  his  Politeness.  But  this 
Abominable  Design  was  happily  discovered  by  the  Vigilance  of 
Another  great  Personage,  .  .  .  who  ...  is  determined  to  take 
Vengeance  ...  by  putting  an  effectual   Restraint  upon  the 


THE  LICENSING  ACT  63 

severe,  but  more  far-reaching  in  its  effects,  pro- 
bably, than  was  intended  at  the  time. 

Consequently,  a  bill  was  prepared  (in  all  pro- 
bability at  the  suggestion  of  the  Prime  Minis- 
ter), bearing  certain  resemblances  to  Sir  John 
Barnard's  bill,  as  amended,  and  hurried  through 
the  House  of  Commons  at  a  time  when  but  few 
members  were  present.  The  main  provisions  of 
the  bill  were  simple  and  direct.  It  prohibited, 
under  penalty  of  £50,  the  acting  for  "  hire,  gain, 
or  reward  "  of  any  play  or  theatrical  performance 
of  any  kind  soever  not  previously  sanctioned 
by  letters  patent  from  the  crown,  or  licensed  by 
the  Lord  Chamberlain.  All  theatres  were  to  be 
restricted  to  the  city  of  Westminster  and  the 
liberties  thereof,  and  to  the  place  where  the  royal 
family  happened,  at  any  time,  to  reside.  Copies 
of  all  plays  to  be  acted  must  be  placed  in  the 
hands  of  the  Lord  Chamberlain  at  least  a  fort- 
night before  being  represented. 

In  a  letter  from  Colonel  Cope  to  Edmund- 
Weston,  dated  May  28,  1737,  among  other 
interesting  things  is  a  curious  side-light  on 
the  Licensing  Bill.  It  runs  as  follows :  "  Mr. 
Horace  Walpole  is  expected  in  London  from 
Norfolk  this  night.  The  Parliament,  'tis  thought, 
will  sett  about  a  fortnight  after  the  Holydays, 

Stage."  Craftsman,  No.  569,  May  28, 1737  ;  Gentleman's  Mag- 
azine, May,  1737. 


64  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

in  which  time  The  Scotch  Bill  may  be  passed  in 
case  the  North  Brittains  are  not  strong  enough 
to  throw  it  out  before,  for  as  they  divided  99 
against  140  odd,  on  the  early  or  late  day  for  the 
consideration  of  the  Bill,  'tis  imagined  they  will 
come  pretty  near  in  the  Progress  of  the  Bill,  by 
many  of  the  Majority  going  out  of  Town  &  such, 
as  the  Master,  Mr.  Pulteny  and  others,  I  am 
told,  not  designing  to  attend  it,  they  were  acci- 
dentally in  the  division  for  the  Comitment  of  the 
Only  Bill  by  waiting  to  flame  &  exclaim  about 
the  Playhouse  Bill,  I  mean  Mr.  Pulteny  for  the 
Master  was  strong  for  the  suppression  of  Play- 
houses &c.  and  said  that  tho'  it  was  a  thin  house, 
yet  he  thought  if  those  Gentlemen  who  were  ab- 
sent, as  had  been  urged,  differ  in  opinion  with 
him  and  be  against  the  bill,  he  thought  they  were 
better  employed  in  looking  after  their  own  affairs, 
upon  which  Pulteny  did  roast  him  most  vio- 
lently, &  said  a  man  who  made  so  gi'eat  a  figure 
in  his  Profession  in  another  place,  might  better 
keep  to  that  place,  then  fell  upon  Winnington 
without  mercy,  and  spared  not  Sr.  Robt  nor  Sr 
Wm  Yonge  urging  that  this  restraint  upon  the 
Writers  for  the  Stage,  was  a  certain  preamble  to 
the  taking  away  the  Liberty  of  the  Press  in  gen- 
eral, told  a  story,  that  Charles  ye  2nd  seeing  a 
man  in  the  pillory,  asked  the  crime,  'Twas  libel- 
ling Lord  Clarendon,  odds  fish  !  cries  the  king, 


THE   LICENSING  ACT  65 

why  did  not  the  Fool  go  on  libelling  o£  me,  he 
must  now  certainly  suffer  for  libelling  this  great 
man.  Ye  Bill  will  pass  &  no  Playhouse  be  al- 
lowed but  in  the  Liberties  of  Westminster,  & 
these  to  be  licenc'd  &  under  the  direction  of  the 
Lord  Chamberlain."  ^ 

One  of  the  first  objections  raised  to  the  bill 
was  the  almost  unlimited  power  which  it  vested 
in  the  Lord  Chamberlain.  The  discouragement 
it  would  cast  on  dramatic  art  by  forcing  writers 
to  cater  to  the  Lord  Chamberlain's  taste  was  also 
pointed  out.  Again,  it  was  asserted  that,  if  it 
was  the  licentiousness  and  immorality  of  the 
stage  at  which  the  bill  aimed,  it  was  unnecessary, 
as  the  law  already  provided  for  the  prosecution  of 
libelers  and  immoral  persons.  Furthermore,  an 
occasional  abuse  of  liberty,  it  was  thought,  could 
be  better  tolerated  than  the  fettering  of  liberty 
itself.^ 

In  Parliament,  Pulteny,  leader  of  the  "  Patri- 
ots," was,  of  course,  opposed  to  any  bill  sanctioned 
by  Walpole.  But  it  was  Lord  Chesterfield  who  at- 
tacked most  vigorously  and  effectively  the  illib- 
eral features  of  the  Licensing  Act.  He  called 
attention  to  the  precipitancy  with  which  it  had 

^  Tenth  Report  of  the  Royal  Commission  on  Historical  Man- 
uscripts ,  i,  266,  267. 

^  London  Magazine,  June,  1737  ;  Common  Sense,  "No.  18,  June 
4, 1737  ;  Gentleman's  Magazine,  June,  1737 ;  Craftsman,  June  4, 
1737. 


66  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

passed  the  House  of  Commons ;  he  pointed  out 
that,  to  enforce  what  was  claimed  as  the  main 
idea  of  the  bill,  —  the  suppression  of  licentious- 
ness, —  the  press  itself  must  be  bridled.  If  a  play 
were  rejected  from  the  stage,  was  it  not  human  na- 
ture to  be  curious  about  what  had  been  forbidden  ? 
And  if  the  press  were  restricted,  as  well  attack 
liberty  outright.  The  power  vested  by  the  bill 
in  the  Lord  Chamberlain  was  declared  to  be 
greater  than  that  intrusted  to  the  King  himself. 
Finally,  the  bill  was  unnecessary,  as  the  abuses 
which  its  promoters  claimed  it  was  intended  to 
restrain  were  already  provided  for  by  law.^  These 
were  the  main  points  of  Lord  Chesterfield's  ar- 
guments against  the  measure. 

But  all  objections  were  in  vain,  and  the  Licen- 
sing Act  passed  on  the  21st  of  June,  1737,  and 
became  a  law  three  days  later.  A  number  of  in- 
terests had  been  involved  in  its  passage,  and, 
undoubtedly,  the  smarts  from  the  lash  of  satire 
which  had  been  inflicted  on  government,  and  par- 
ticularly on  Walpole,  were  the  immediate  forces 
carrying  the  bill  through.  But  there  can  be  lit- 
tle doubt  that  along  with  this  ran  the  jealousy 
of  the  patentees  for  the  managers  of  independ- 
ent theatres.  These  had  robbed  Drury  Lane  of 
its  leading  actors  on  one  occasion,  and  had  taken 

^  Gentleman's  Magazine,  July,  1737  ;  London  Magazine, 
August,  1737. 


THE  LICENSING  ACT  67 

away  the  audiences  of  both  Drury  Lane  and 
Covent  Garden  on  numerous  occasions  ;  all  of 
which  made  it  indispensable  for  the  existence  of 
the  latter  that  the  former  should  be  exterminated. 
If  the  sole  aim  of  the  act  had  been  to  free  the 
stage  from  abuse  and  to  protect  society,  why 
were  the  patent  houses  excepted  ?  For  certainly 
they  were  the  first  offenders.  Or,  why  was  not 
some  such  plan  adopted  as  that  advocated  by 
Aaron  Hill,  namely,  to  permit  only  the  legitimate 
drama  to  be  acted  in  the  unlicensed  (or  unpa- 
tented) theatres,  thereby  forcing  theatrical  com- 
petition out  of  the  domain  of  buffoonery  and 
pantomime  to  a  higher  level  ?  ^ 

The  underlying  cause  of  animosity  toward  the 
unlicensed  theatres  was  scarcely  covered  over  by 
the  political  arguments  in  favor  of  protection  to 
the  state.  Gibber,  after  dwelling  for  some  pages 
on  the  political  necessity  of  the  Licensing  Act, 
lets  slip  another  argument  for  it.  "  And  now 
we  have  seen  the  Gonsequence  of  what  many 
People  are  apt  to  contend  for,  Variety  of  Play- 
houses !  How  was  it  possible  so  many  could  hon- 
estly subsist,  on  what  was  fit  to  be  seen  ?  Their 
extraordinary  Number,  of  course,  reduc'd  them 
to  live  upon  the  Gratification  of  such  Hearers, 
as  they  knew  would  be  best  pleased  with  pub- 

1  Prompter,  Hv,  May  16,  1735.  This  editorial  contains  the 
best  criticism  of  the  theatrical  situation  I  have  found. 


68  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

lick  Offence ;  and  publick  Offence,  of  what  kind 
soever,  will  always  be  a  good  Reason  for  making 
Laws  to  restrain  it."  The  logic  of  "  of  course  "  is 
not  at  first  apparent,  nor  is  the  force  any  more  pa- 
tent of  the  following  conclusion,  which  assumes 
that,  since  new  plays  must  be  written  to  support 
a  number  of  theatres,  therefore,  such  plays  must 
be  disgracefully  bad.  But  to  resume  Gibber's 
discussion.  "  To  conclude,  let  us  now  consider 
this  Law,  in  a  quite  different  Light ;  let  us  leave 
the  political  Part  of  it  quite  out  of  the  Question  ; 
What  Advantage  could  either  the  Spectators 
of  Plays,  or  the  Masters  of  Play-houses  have 
gain'd  by  its  having  never  been  made  ?  How 
could  the  same  Stock  of  Plays  supply  four  The- 
atres, which  (without  such  additional  Enter- 
tainments, as  a  Nation  of  common  Sense  ought 
to  be  ashamed  of)  could  not  well  support  two  ? 
Satiety  must  have  been  the  natural  Consequence, 
of  the  same  Plays  being  twice  as  often  repeated, 
as  now  they  need  be ;  and  Satiety  puts  an  End 
to  all  Tastes,  that  the  Mind  of  Man  can  delight 
in."  1 

In  the  foregoing  discussion  I  have  attempted 
to  brino-  togfether  all  the  essential  evidences 
showing  the  causes,  immediate  and  remote,  of 
the  Licensing  Act,  as  well  as  to  explain  the  dif- 
ference in  status  of   the  theatrical  question  in 

1  Gibber's  Apology,  pp.  241,  242. 


THE  LICENSING  ACT  69 

London  before  and  after  the  passage  of  that  act. 
If  I  have  succeeded  in  this,  it  will  appear  that 
the  Vagrant  Act  of  12  Queen  Anne,  which  had 
been  passed  to  meet  local  and  temporary  condi- 
tions, had  fallen  into  disuse,  and  with  it  the 
control  of  the  crown  over  theatrical  amusements. 
This  is  clearly  seen  in  the  rise  of  the  Haymarket 
and  Goodman's  Fields  Theatres  in  defiance  of 
that  law,  and  in  the  results  of  the  contests  be- 
tween the  manager  of  Drury  Lane  and  the  actors 
in  1733,  especially  the  decision  in  the  case  of  the 
Patentees  vs.  Harper.  The  preamble  to  the  act 
itself  plainly  expresses,  in  general  terms,  this  fact, 
that  the  act  was  made  for  the  express  purpose  of 
amending  and  making  more  effectual  the  Vagrant 
Act  of  12  Queen  Anne,  as  relates  to  common 
players  of  interludes.  In  other  words,  the  Licen- 
sing Act  restored  the  crown  prerogative  respect- 
ing plays  and  players,  and  brought  into  one  legal 
focus  what  had  already  been  sanctioned  by  com- 
mon law.  No  alteration  was  made  in  the  fact ; 
simply,  the  fact  was  placed  in  the  light  of  an 
enforcing  and  enforceable  legal  form.  This  being 
the  case,  it  would  hardly  seem  requisite  to  point 
out  again  that  no  individual  can  be  held  respon- 
sible for  the  act  of  1737 ;  or,  that  the  real  need 
of  such  a  law  lay  in  the  necessity  of  centralizing 
responsibility  for  the  abuse  of  privileges  in  mat- 
ters theatrical.    That  the  meaning  and  intent  of 


70  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

the  act  was  perverted  to  the  use  of  selfish  and 
tyrannical  ends  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  dis- 
cussion in  hand. 

With  the  passage  of  the  Licensing  Act,  a 
practical  policy  was  crystallized  in  a  moment  for 
the  patentees,  and  the  government  was  committed 
to  the  support  of  that  policy.  It  marks  the  lii'st 
distinct  definition  of  the  position  of  the  govern- 
ment relative  to  theatrical  amusements,  and  out- 
lines the  defense  of  that  position.  The  magnified 
occasion  which  gave  it  birth  soon  passed  from 
sight,  and  the  underlying  real  significance  ap- 
peared. All  the  ground  gained  for  a  free  stage 
since  the  days  of  Charles  II  was  lost  in  the 
twinkling  of  an  eye,  and  the  monopoly  was  sealed 
more  certainly  than  ever  before.  More  certainly, 
because  the  real  meaning  of  theatrical  monopoly 
was  better  understood  than  ever  before.  Disor- 
ganization distinguishes  theatrical  disturbances 
before  1737 ;  with  the  Licensing  Act,  the  lines 
were  clearly  drawn,  and  the  struggle  on  both 
sides  gradually  fell  into  settled  order  and  plan. 
But  it  was  more  than  a  century  before  the  advo- 
cates of  freedom  in  theatrical  afifairs  in  London 
were  able  to  put  to  rest  the  obnoxious  Licensing 
Act  of  1737.1 

^  The  new  law  made  necessary  the  appointment  of  a  new 
official,  an  examiner,  or  licenser  of  stage  plays,  who  acted 
under  the  immediate   authority  of  the   Lord   Chamberlain. 


THE  LICENSING  ACT  71 

Relative  to  the  first  appointment  to  this  office,  Genest  says 
{English  Stage,  iii,  522) ,  "  In  February,  1738,  according  to  the 
Manuscript  in  the  British  Museum,  or  in  April,  according  to 
Chalmers,  William  Chetwynd  was  sworn  in  Licenser  of  the 
stage  (under  the  Lord  Chamberlain)  with  a  salary  of  £400  a 
year.  "  Odell,  founder  of  the  Goodman's  Fields  Theatre,  was 
made  deputy  licenser. 


CHAPTER   IV 

THE   LICENSING   ACT   IN   PRACTICE,   1737-1787 

THE  immediate  effect  of  the  Licensing  Act 
was  the  closing  of  the  Goodman's  Fields 
Theatre,  and  also  the  Little  Theatre  in  the  Hay- 
market  ;  and  two  manuscript  tragedies  the  en- 
suing season  were  prohibited  by  the  licenser  of 
plays.  One  of  these  was  Gustava  Vasa  (by 
Henry  Brooke),  and,  as  was  predicted  by  Lord 
Chesterfield,  the  proscription  was  followed  by  a 
numerous  subscription  and  wide  circulation  of 
the  tragedy.  Victor  says  of  this  circumstance, 
"  I  am  certain  he  [Brooke]  cleared  above  a 
Thousand  Pounds  by  that  Subscription  ;  so  much 
incensed  were  the  Public  at  this  first  Instance 
of  the  Power  of  a  Licencer."  The  other  piece 
was  Edward  and  Eleanora,  a  play  founded  on 
an  apocryphal  episode  in  the  life  of  Edward  I. 
This  was  printed  in  1739,  and,  like  Gustava 
Vasa,)  was  supported  by  subscription.  It  was 
written  by  James  Thomson,  author  of  "  The  Sea- 
sons." The  unpopularity  of  the  act  reached  its 
climax  when  a  company  of  French  strollers  were 
licensed  to  exhibit  at  the  theatre  lately  occupied 


THE  LICENSING  ACT  IN  PRACTICE      73 

by  Fielding.  The  advertisement  of  these  per- 
formers was  headed  in  bold  letters,  "  BY  AU- 
THORITY ! "  but  they  soon  discovered  that  there 
was  an  authority  above  that  of  mere  sound,  as 
evinced  by  public  clamor  which  developed  into 
a  riot,  effectually  putting  a  stop  to  the  perform- 
ance.^ The  obnoxious  law  itself  was  quite  as 
much  as  the  public  were  willing  to  staijd ;  its 
enforcement  by  means  of  permitting  to  a  foreign 
troupe  —  and  that  a  French  troupe  —  the  liberty 
which  had  been  denied  Englishmen,  was  consid- 
ered a  sufficient  justification  for  the  violence  of 
the  incensed  audience. 

Matters  stood  thus  for  a  year  or  two,  when  it 
occui'red  to  the  enemies  of  the  new  "  gagging  law  " 
that  a  practical  evasion  might  be  devised.  Our 
old  friend  Giffard  was  ringleader  to  the  scheme, 
which  was  simply  to  get  around  the  "  for  gain, 
hire,  or  reward  "  clause  of  the  Licensing  Act,  and 
on  the  15th  of  October,  1740,  he  caused  to  be 
published  the  following  announcement :  "  At  the 
late  Theatre  in  Ayliffe  Street  —  A  Concert  of 
Vocal  and  Instrumental  Musick  in  2  Parts  — 
Between  the  Parts  of  the  Concert  will  be  pre- 
sented gratis  a  Comedy,  called  The  Stratagem  — 
By  Persons    for  their  diversion."     Three  days 

^  The  play  was  a  three-act  Comedy,  The  Plague  of  Riches, 
aud  was  advertised  for  October  9, 1738.  Gentleman's  Magazine, 
October,  1738.    See  also  Victor,  i,  53. 


74  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

later,  Venice  Preserved  was  given,  and  perform- 
ances appeared  more  or  less  regularly  on  the 
Goodman's  Fields  stage  throughout  the  season, 
which  closed  on  May  7,  1741. 

That  Giffard  was  unmolested  in  his  operations 
at  the  Goodman's  Fields  Theatre  in  1740-41 
does  not  appear  to  be  due  to  the  fact  that  he 
evaded,  or  thought  he  was  evading,  the  act  of 
1737,  though,  no  doubt,  it  was  that  which  em- 
boldened him  to  make  the  attempt.  It  would 
seem,  rather,  that  for  abetting  Sir  Robert  Wal- 
pole,  by  delivering  to  him  the  Golden  Hump, 
Giffard  had  earned  the  good -will  of  the  Premier, 
who  now  took  the  opportunity  to  express  his  grati- 
tude to  the  manager  by  winking  at  the  infraction 
of  the  law  passed  at  his  own  request.  As  a  fur- 
ther reason  why  Giffard  was  uninterrupted  in  his 
movements,  it  was  said  that  since  he  confined 
himself  to  the  plays  of  Shakespeare  "  and  a  few 
deceased  poets  of  eminence,"  he  avoided  running 
counter  to  the  interests  of  the  patent  houses.^ 

But  the  time  was  near  at  hand  when  these 
reasons,  if  ever  potent,  were  insufficient  to  defend 
Giffard  from  the  envy  of  the  patentees.  When 
the  young  David  Garrick,  with  a  brief  appren- 

^  Town  and  Country  Magazine,  October,  1787.  It  was  re- 
ported that  Walpole  ordered  a  gratuity  of  £600  to  be  tendered 
Giffard  for  his  '  zeal  for  government, '  but  that  it  was  never 
given.   See  also  Baker,  Biographia  Dramatica,  ii,  139. 


THE  LICENSING  ACT  IN  PRACTICE      75 

ticeship  in  one  of  the  country  theatres,  first 
appeared  in  London,  little  attention  was  bestowed 
on  him.  Neither  of  the  managers  of  the  patent 
houses,  it  was  said,  offered  him  any  encourage- 
ment when  he  applied  to  them.  It  is  to  the  credit 
and  honor  of  Henry  Giffard  that  the  greatest 
actor  who  has  yet  appeared  on  the  English  stage 
had  an  introduction  to  a  London  audience.  On 
the  19th  of  October,  1741,  Garrick  appeared, 
for  the  first  time  on  a  London  stage,  at  Good- 
man's Fields  Theatre,  in  Richard  Third.  That 
theatre  had  not  been  noted,  hitherto,  for  the  ex- 
cellence of  its  performers,  and  so  the  first  night 
was  not  distinguished  by  a  large,  or  otherwise 
exceptional,  audience.  But  the  genius  of  Garrick 
brought  with  it  a  revolution  in  the  histrionic  art, 
from  a  sing-song,  affected  declamation  to  a  re- 
presentation of  nature  ;  and  by  dint  of  this  genius 
the  character  of  the  audiences  at  Goodman's 
Fields  was  almost  immediately  metamorphosed. 
The  young  actor's  fame  spread  throughout  every 
part  of  the  town  with  the  greatest  rapidity  ;  and 
Goodman's  Fields  Theatre,  which  had  been  con- 
fined to  the  inhabitants  of  the  city,  became  the 
resort  of  the  polite,  and  was  honored  with  the 
notice  of  all  ranks  and  orders  of  people.^ 

From  a  business  point  of  view,  Garrick's  en- 

1  Baker,  Biographia  Dramatica,  Introduction,  p.  xlii ;  Davies, 
Memoirs  of  Garrick,  3d  ed.,  i,  42-50. 


76  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

gagement  at  Goodman's  Fields  swelled  the  cof- 
fers at  that  theatre,  and,  in  an  inverse  ratio, 
diminished  those  of  the  patent  houses.  The  pa- 
tentees became  alarmed  at  the  turn  affairs  were 
taking,  and  determined  no  longer  to  brook  the 
success,  at  their  expense,  of  Giffard's  house. 
Uniting  their  efforts,  and  securing  the  coop- 
eration of  Sir  John  Barnard  (mover  of  the 
Playhouse  Bill  of  1735),  then  one  of  the  chief 
magistrates  of  London,  they  threatened  Giffard 
and  Garrick  with  the  Licensing  Act.  Thus  in- 
timidated, Garrick  made  terms  with  Fleetwood 
of  Drury  Lane  and  joined  the  company  at  the 
patent  house  at  a  salary  of  £500.  Giffard  was 
finally  compelled  to  shut  the  Goodman's  Fields 
Theatre,  and  soon  afterwards  he  engaged  at 
Drury  Lane.^  The  whole  transaction  illustrates 
not  only  the  efficiency  of  the  act  of  1737,  but 
it  also  discovers  the  fact  that  the  patentees  in- 
tended that  the  law  should  not  remain  a  dead 
letter  so  long  as  it  could  be  enforced  to  serve 
their  ends. 

Although  the  patent  rights  of  the  two  old  the- 

^  With  the  exception  of  a  brief  occupancy  of  Lincoln's-Inn- 
Fields,  in  the  spring  of  1743,  this  ended  Giffard's  career  as  a 
theatre  manager.  While  in  charge  of  Goodman's  Fields,  he 
had  revived  AlPs  Well,  Winter\^  Tale,  Henry  V,  and  King 
Arthur,  introduced  Garrick  to  London,  and  also  brought  out 
two  of  the  actor's  own  pieces,  The  Lying  Valet,  a  farce,  and 
Lethe,  a  satire.   Genest,  iv,  47-49. 


THE  LICENSING  ACT  IN   PRACTICE      77 

atres  seemed  thus  secure  from  external  foes,  they 
were  not  secure  from  internal  discords.  Feeling 
too  acutely  the  independence  furnished  by  a 
legal  safeguard,  Fleetwood  of  Drury  Lane  took 
advantage  of  the  situation  to  treat  his  actors  in 
a  niggardly  fashion,  refusing  them  their  salaries, 
and  otherwise  showing  them  professional  dis- 
courtesies. Led  by  Garrick  and  Macklin  (who 
had  been  acting-manager  of  Drury  Lane  since 
the  revolt  of  1733),  ten  of  the  performers  formed 
a  compact  to  oppose  the  obstinacy  and  insolence 
of  the  manager.  Hoping  to  enlist  the  sympathy 
of  the  Lord  Chamberlain  in  their  cause,  as  Bet- 
terton  had  done  in  1695,  the  seceding  actors 
applied  for  a  license  to  set  up  a  theatrical  com- 
pany at  the  Little  Theatre  in  the  Haymarket. 
But  to  their  amazement  the  Duke  of  Grafton 
(then  Lord  Chamberlain)  treated  their  suit  with 
manifest  coolness ;  he  probably  remembered  the 
unjust  and  despicable  attempts  of  Theophilus 
Cibber  to  ruin  the  prospects  of  Highmore,  ten 
years  before,  and  so  refused  to  grant  a  license. 
This  contingency  was  entirely  unlooked-for,  and, 
although  there  can  be  but  little  doubt  that  the 
revolters  were  all  pledged  to  accede  to  no  terms 
proposed  by  Fleetwood,  rather  than  bring  dis- 
aster on  so  many  by  holding  out,  Garrick  hastily 
beat  a  retreat  and  signed  a  treaty  of  peace  with 
the  Drury  Lane  manager.    The  action  of  Garrick 


78  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

on  this  occasion,  though  excused  on  the  grounds 
of  judgment  and  prudence,  was  bitterly  attacked 
by  Macklin,  and  was  the  cause  of  a  long  and 
caustic  war  of  pamphlets.  Macklin,  true  to  his 
nature  and  the  principle  which  led  him  to  take 
his  stand  against  Fleetwood,  in  the  first  instance, 
remained  fixed  in  his  determination  to  continue 
the  warfare.  As  a  consequence,  when  the  com- 
promise was  patched  up  between  the  other  actors 
and  the  patentee,  Macklin  found  himself  out  of 
the  company,  likewise  out  of  employment.  How- 
ever, the  old  veteran  was  a  fighter,  and  did  not 
long  remain  idle.  Though  excluded  from  Drury 
Lane,  he  gathered  a  company  of  young  actors  at 
the  Little  Theatre  in  the  Haymarket,  and,  with 
the  ostensible  purpose  of  instructing  them  in  the 
art  of  acting,  opened  the  theatre  on  February 
6,  1744,  with  a  concert,  followed  by  Othello. 
Once  more  the  letter  of  the  law  was  evaded.  As 
explained  by  the  play-bill,  "  No  money  will  be 
taken  at  the  doors,  nor  any  person  admitted, 
but  by  printed  tickets  which  will  be  delivered 
by  Mr.  Macklin  at  his  home  in  Bow  Street,  C. 
G."  Among  this  heterogeneous  company  of  raw 
recruits  was  a  name  which  was  destined,  in  its 
way,  to  become  famous.  In  the  title  role  of 
Othello  Samuel  Foote  made  his  first  appearance 
on  a  London  stage.  ^ 

^  Cooke,  Memoirs  of  Macklin,  pp.  ISS-liS  ;  Davies,  Memoirs 


THE  LICENSING  ACT  IN  PRACTICE      79 

For  all  Macklin's  wrath  at  Garrick,  and  the 
avowals  of  eternal  enmity  between  Fleetwood 
and  Macklin,  the  latter  was,  with  the  opening 
of  the  season  of  1744-45,  once  more  back  at 
Drury  Lane  in  his  favorite  character  of  Shy  lock. 
The  occasional  Prologue,  spoken  by  Macklin 
at  this  time,  was  so  full  of  humble  contrition 
for  his  recent  offense,  that  it  must  have  caused 
merriment  to  all  lovers  of  comedy.  Theophilus 
Gibber  was  left  at  the  Hay  market  to  succeed  to 
the  management,  and  his  purpose,  or  devise, 
may  best  be  explained  in  his  own  words,  quoted 
from  his  "  Serio-Comic  Apology  :  "  — 

"  As  I  am  advised  by  the  Learned  in  the 
Laws  of  the  Land,  that  no  Act  of  Parliament 
deems  Actinrj  Malum  in  se,  I  shall  not  be  afraid, 
for  the  better  Instruction  of  my  Pupils,  the 
more  to  embolden  them  to  a  Stage,  to  permit 
them  frequently  .  .  ,  publickly  to  rehearse  sev- 
eral Pieces  of  our  most  celebrated  Authors ; 
and  that  the  Town  may  be  the  Judges  of  the 
Progress  they  make  in  their  Studies,  those  jffe- 
hearsals  Qivlth  2)roper  Habits^  Decorations,  &q.^ 
will  be  exhibited  Gratis^ 

It  was  announced  that  money  would  be  taken 
for  the  concerts  only,  an  emphasis  being  laid  on 
the  free  "  publick  Rehearsals."    The  musical  pro- 

of  Garrick,  Am.  ed.,  toI.  i,  ch.  viii ;    Gentleman's  Magazine, 
October-December,  1743. 


80  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

gramme  was  to  be  rendered  from  about  four  to 
seven  in  the  afternoon,  after  which  the  doors 
would  be  closed,  to  open  immediately  for  the 
gratis  performance.  There  needed  no  powers  of 
divination  to  see  through  this  thin  veil  of  decep- 
tion, and  it  was  the  more  readily  rent  because 
Theophilus  Gibber  was  in  very  bad  odor  with 
the  patentees,  and  with  the  public  in  general. 
Soon  after  the  appearance  of  the  above  an- 
nouncement, a  Justice  of  the  Peace  notified 
Gibber  that  an  application  was  in  process  of  mak- 
ing to  prevent  his  scheme.  Theophilus  persisted 
that  he  had  a  right  to  earn  his  bread,  if,  in  so 
doing,  he  were  in  no  wise  violating  the  laws  of 
the  land.  To  test  the  case,  he  manifested  a  will- 
ingness to  have  his  cause  tried  in  the  King's 
Bench  ;  but  he  was  informed  that  his  "  school " 
was  a  mere  sham,  that  the  law  distinctly  required 
a  license  of  him,  and  that  if  he  failed  to  secure 
one,  he  was  liable  to  prosecution  as  a  vagabond. 
The  pressure  was  too  strong  for  Gibber,  and, 
after  a  week  of  quibbling,  "  down  dropped  the 
Academy,"  and  the  monopoly  once  more  proved 
to  be  invulnerable.  Gibber  thereupon  threw  up 
the  business  and  got  employment  with  Rich  at 
Govent  Garden  where  he  appeared  in  the  play- 
bills among  the  actors  in  the  Relapse,  advertised 
for  January  2,  1745.  Mrs.  Gharke  (Golley  Gib- 
ber's daughter)  completed,  without  molestation, 


THE   LICENSING   ACT   IN   PRACTICE      81 

the  few  remaining  performances  announced  by 

Cibber.i 

The  revolt  of  1743,  following  so  closely  upon 
the  passage  of  the  Licensing  Act,  called  for 
the  expression  of  public  opinion  in  no  equivocal 
terms.  Although  the  result  of  the  controversy 
was  a  positive  victory  for  the  defenders  of  patent 
rights  in  theatres,  certain  criticisms  were  I'aised 
relative  to  the  legality  of  the  patents  themselves, 
which  placed  the  holders  of  those  documents  in 
a  most  uncomfortable  position.^  The  whole  cause 
of  the  disgraceful  contest  was  entered  into  at 
length,  and  the  results  of  numerous  "  impartial 
examens "  were  published  to  the  town  in  that 
convenient  and  popular  medium,  the  printed 
pamphlet.  It  was  readily  seen  that  the  new  law 
had  not  reached  all  the  evils  connected  with  the 
theatres,  for,  it  was  conceived,  the  competitive 
warfare  carried  on  between  the  two  patent  houses 
was,  in  reality,  at  the  bottom  of  the  disputes  of 
1743.    "  When  each  Playhouse  labours  to  have 

^  Genest,  iv,  171.  Soon  after  the  occurrences  related  in 
the  foregoing  jjaragraph,  Fleetwood  was  under  the  necessity 
of  selling,  or  mortgaging,  his  license  at  Drury  Lane  to  two 
brokers,  Green  and  Amber  (1745).  Lacey,  the  actor,  joined  the 
venture,  and,  in  a  short  time,  became  the  sole  proprietor.  In 
1747,  Garrick  was  admitted  to  partnership,  and  the  Drury 
Lane  license  was  renewed  to  Lacey  and  Gamck  conjointly. 

^  While  Drury  Lane  continued  to  be  governed  by  a  license 
instead  of  a  patent,  it  was  during  the  whole  of  the  eighteenth 
century,  and  later,  considered  a  "  patent  "  house. 


82  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

all,"  argues  one, "  and  strives  to  have  more  good 
Sense,  better  Singers  and  finer  Dancers  than  the 
other,  the  natural  Consequence  must  be  that  the 
Town  will  reap  Satisfaction  from  neither,  espe- 
cially if  there  be  a  deficiency  of  Prudence  in 
the  Management  of  both.  .  .  .  The  Misfortune 
is,  that  the  Managers  are  Brokers  only,'  and 
bid  for  the  Town,"  with  the  result  that  both  the 
public  and  the  actors  must  suffer.  To  obviate  the 
difficulties  arising  from  such  a  senseless  com- 
petition, it  was  suggested  by  J.  Ralph,  in  "  The 
Case  of  the  Present  Theatrical  Disputes,"  that 
one  of  the  theatres  should  appropriate  tragedy, 
while  the  other  might  cater  to  the  public  taste  for 
comedy.  The  serious  and  disgraceful  controversy 
which  had  been  foisted  on  the  public,  it  was 
apprehended  by  the  author  of  "An  Impartial 
Examen  of  the  Present  Contests  between  the 
Town  and  the  Manager,"  was  due  to  rival  actors 
and  unnecessary  jealousies,  fostered  by  the  man- 
ager himself ;  and  to  the  paying  of  salaries  un- 
justified by  merit  or  the  financial  condition  of 
Fleetwood, —  all  for  the  purpose  of  destroying  the 
competition  of  the  house  in  Covent  Garden.  Such 
unbusiness-like  extravagance  resulted  in  putting 
on  cheap  and  poorly  "  dressed  "  entertainments, 
and  forced  the  conclusion  that  the  immediate  dif- 
ficulty was  due  to  incapable  management. 

1  See  note  on  p.  81. 


THE  LICENSING  ACT  IN  PRACTICE      83 

The  abuse  of  the  Licensing  Act,  as  enforced 
in  the  contests  of  1743,  did  not  escape  the  most 
scathing^  denunciation.  All  that  had  been  feared 
from  its  unequal  operation  had  come  to  pass. 
"  The  Actors  are  a  People  from  the  highest  to 
the  Lowest,"  breaks  forth  "  Mr.  Neither-side  " 
in  his  "  Impartial  Examen,"  "  the  most  to  be 
pitied  of  his  Majesty's  Subjects;  because  the  last 
Theatrical  Act  of  Parliament  has  made  them  the 
only  Slaves  in  the  Nation :  All  other  Degrees  of 
People  have  Liberty  to  try  to  get  a  Livllhood 
in  the-  Profession  they  were  bred  to  ;  and  I  hope 
from  the  ill  use  of  Power  the  two  Theatrical 
Managers  have  made,  to  see  this  ensuing  Ses- 
sions that  Act  repealed,  ..." 

"  This  Act  of  Parliament  was  so  lately  made, 
and  the  Cause  of  it  so  well  known,  viz.  the  scan- 
dalous Licentiousness  of  an  abusive  Wit,  &c,  that 
one  may  venture  to  say  it  is  made  use  of,  at  pre- 
sent, for  a  quite  contrary  Purpose  than  it  was 
first  intended.  The  Innocent  only  have  suffer'd 
by  it!  .  .  .  As  it  was  not,  I'm  confident,  de- 
sign'd  meerly  to  promote  a  Monopoly  of  The- 
atrical Diversions  for  two  People,  who,  in  many 
Points,  have  shewn  themselves  unequal  to  the 
Station  they  are  in,  I  will  hope  some  Amend- 
ments will  at  least  be  made  in  it,  or  such  ex- 
planation of  it,  as  seems  now  palpably  necessary : 
As  it  stands,  let  any  one  make  Interest  privately, 


84  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

with  any  Justice  of  Peace,  they  can  even  disturb 
any  Persons  who  really  give  their  Performance 
of  a  Play ;  and  as  their  Commitment  is  in  Exe- 
cution, the  Person  oppress'd  must  first  undergo 
the  Punishment,  and  may  afterwards  try  whether 
'tis  legal :  An  odd  Circumstance,  in  a  free 
Country,  according  to  an  old  Phrase  —  to  Hang 
^emjirst,  and  Try  afterwards.''  This  is  so  just 
an  interpretation  of  the  practical  meaning  of  the 
Licensing  Act,  that  I  have  been  tempted  to 
quote  it  at  length.  If  the  writer  of  the  pamphlet 
could  have  known  that  the  act  was  to  continue 
unaltered  to  near  the  middle  of  the  nineteenth 
century,  he  would  have  had  cause  to  exclaim. 

But  the  real  difficulty  lay,  as  some  were  wise 
enough  to  see,  in  the  very  principle  of  patent 
rights,  the  perpetuity  of  which  depended  on  the 
bolstering-up  of  an  unjust  law.  It  was  boldly 
questioned  whether  by  virtue  of  any  grant,  pa- 
tent, or  license,  a  theatrical  manager  had  the 
right  to  turn  the  public  interest  to  private  ends. 
The  manager  of  a  theatre,  it  was  declared,  was 
as  answerable  for  the  public  taste,  as  a  prime 
minister  for  a  well-ordered  government ;  and,  it 
was  thought,  any  abuse  of  the  privileges  con- 
tained in  a  patent  should  be  deemed  sufficient 
grounds  for  the  forfeiture  of  the  grant.  The 
treatment  of  the  actors  by  Fleetwood  was  an  in- 
stance of  abuse  of  privilege  ;  the  use  of  a  public 


THE  LICENSING  ACT  IN  PRACTICE      85 

commodity  (for  such  was  theatrical  amusement 
considered)  for  private  ends  was  another.  To 
avoid,  in  future,  any  recurrence  of  the  disputes 
of  1743,  it  was  proposed  to  regulate  the  national 
theatres  in  such  a  way  as  to  msure  their  manage- 
ment for  the  public  good.  The  difficulties  attend- 
ing such  an  attempt  at  reformation  were  antici- 
pated. To  quote  again  from  Ralph's  pamphlet, 
"  The  parties  concerned  may  not  submit  to  such 
a  new  regulation ;  .  .  .  the  Managers  will  insist 
upon  their  Patents,  which  flow  from  the  mere 
Grace  and  Favour  of  the  Crown ;  and  the 
Players  on  their  respective  Merits,  ...  to  value 
that  same  Merit  of  theirs  at  what  rate  they  shall 
think  fit.  But  alas  !  can  they  imagine,  that  the 
Crown  itself  will  ever  suffer  a  Patent  to  stand  in 
the  way  of  public  good,  ...  or,  have  more  re- 
gard for  the  private  interest  of  a  Manager,  than 
for  that  of  the  Community.  No,  No,  this  is  never 
to  be  feared,  and  besides,  if  even  such  were  the 
case,  there  are  ordinary,  and  extraordinary  ways 
of  coming  at  Patents,  and  of  rendering  them  void, 
when  they  are  visibly  abused."  Some  years  be- 
fore, the  editor  of  the  "  Prompter  "  (No.  cxvii) 
had  summarized,  in  brief  terms,  the  exigencies 
which  might  (and  did)  overtake  the  theatrical 
patents :  "  Had  those  Patents  .  .  .  determin'd 
with  the  Lives  of  their  Grantees^  Had  they  been 
limited  (as  certainly  they  ought  to  have  been) 


86  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

to  the  Personal  claims  of  those  Gentlemen,  in 
Right  of  whose  Genius  they  were  granted,  the 
Power  reverting  continually  to  the  Crown,  Care 
would  still  have  been  taken,  to  bestow  it  afresh, 
with  View  to  the  Original  Motive,  the  Merit  of 
the  Hand  it  went  into.  .  .  .  But  Hereditary 
Right  to  be  WITTY,  being  a  false,  and  un- 
maintainable Title^  the  EDICTS  for  Perpetuat- 
ing JUDGMENT, /e?Z  (in  the  literal  sense  of  the 
Word)  to  be  stock-jobV d^  into  incapable  Hands : 
Whence  a  mercenary  Disposition  to  make  the 
most  of  their  Bargain,  became  the  chief  Point 
of  Sight,  to  those  Buyers  of  an  Oj)portunity  to 
expose  their  own  Ignorance." 

But  such  arguments  and  pleas  were  now  futile, 
for,  although  the  episode  of  the  secession  of  1743 
reduced  Fleetwood  to  bankruptcy,  which  forced 
him  out  of  the  management  of  Drury  Lane,  the 
theatrical  monopoly  came  out  of  the  conflict  un- 
scathed and  securer  than  ever.  Henceforward, 
the  matter  of  theatrical  privileges  was  at  the 
disposal  of  the  patentees,  or,  rather,  what  seemed 
to  them  the  same  thing,  the  Lord  Chamberlain. 
If  any  one  desired  to  entertain  the  public  with 
a  performance  falling  within  the  meaning  of  the 
Licensing  Act,^  the  custom  was  soon  established 

^  The  list  was  inclusive,  comprehending  "  interludes,  trage- 
dies, comedies,  operas,  plays,  farces,  or  other  entertainments  of 
the  stage." 


THE  LICENSING  ACT  IN   PRACTICE      87 

of  first  gaining  the  consent  of  the  patentees,  and, 
afterwards,  the  license  of  the  Lord  Chamberlain. 
On  rare  occasions  this  order  was  not  observed, 
but  the  greatest  care  was  exercised  that  the 
patent  houses  be  kept  free  from  the  annoyance 
and  danger  of  outside  competition. 

For  many  years  after  the  events  just  recorded, 
no  serious  attempt  was  made  to  break  over  the 
barriers  erected  about  the  theatrical  business 
in  London.  In  the  spring  and  summer  of  1747, 
the  eccentric  Samuel  Foote,  who  made  his  first 
appearance  as  an  actor  in  Macklin's  "  school " 
during  the  revolt  of  1743,  began  his  "  Dish  of 
Chocolate"  and  "Dish  of  Tea"  diversions  at  the 
Little  Theatre  in  the  Hay  market.^  The  next 
year  he  varied  the  programme  with  what  he 
pleased  to  call  "  An  Auction  of  Pictures,"  which 
he  continued  in  1749.  A  few  years  later  (1755), 
the  Lord  Chamberlain  (then  Duke  of  Devon- 
shire) took  pity  on  the  wretched  condition  of  the 
disreputable  Theophilus  Cibber,  and,  for  a  brief 
period  during  the  summer,  permitted  him  to  open 
the  Little  Theatre  for  performances.  Genest^ 
quotes  Cibber's  advertisement  as  follows  :  "  At 
the  new  theatre  in  the  Haymarket,  with  authority 
by  Bayes'  new  raised  company  of  comedians." 

^  General  Advertiser  for  Api-il  22,  1747  ;  quoted  by  Genest, 
iv,  225. 

2  English  Stage,  iv,  424. 


88  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

The  regular  drama  was  presented  at  these  per- 
formances. On  Sej)tember  28,  1759,  The  Busy 
Body  was  given  at  the  Haymarket  for  Mrs. 
Charke's  benefit,  and  the  next  year  Foote's 'farce, 
The  Jfijior,  came  out  there.  But  in  1761,  a  man 
with  a  do^-show  forestalled  Foote  in  securing:  the 
Haymarket  Theatre,  and  so  Foote  and  Murphy 
were  suffered  to  open  Drury  Lane  as  a  summer 
theatre.  Every  summer  for  the  next  four  years, 
as  we  learn  from  the  old  play-bill  collector, 
Foote  was  at  the  Haymarket,  bringing  out  his 
own  characteristic  productions  —  Ifinor,  Orators^ 
Mayor  of  Garratt,  and  others. 

But  little  significance  can  be  attached  to  these 
summer  amusements  of  Foote's  at  the  Haymar- 
ket from  1747  to  1756,  for  they  were  so  unique 
that  many  of  them  fell  outside  the  definitioij 
of  theatrical  performances  proper,  and  scarcely 
any  of  them  could  be  regarded  as  competing 
with  the  exhibitions  at  the  patent  houses.  It  was 
in  view  of  this  fact,  and  particularly  since 
Foote's  entertainments  were  given  in  the  sumr 
mer  season,  that  they  were  tolerated.  However, 
essential  results  sometimes  develop  from  appar- 
ently inconsiderable  beginnings.  In  February, 
1766,  Foote  made  a  visit  to  Lord  Mexborough, 
in  Hants.  A  number  of  gentlemen  of  distinction 
were  there  at  the  time,  among  others  the  Duke 
of  York,  and,  knowing  Foote's  reputation   for 


THE  LICENSING  ACT  IN  PRACTICE      89 

repartee,  they  bantered  liim  on  the  subject  of  his 
horsemanship.  In  a  spirit  of  braggadocio,  he 
was  induced  to  mount  the  Duke's  horse,  a  most 
spirited  animal,  but  he  was  scarcely  seated  in  the 
saddle  when  he  was  thrown  with  such  terrific 
violence  as  to  break  one  of  his  legs  in  two  places. 
Everything  known  to  the  surgery  of  the  day  was 
done  to  save  the  limb,  but  to  no  avail,  and  am- 
putation was  finally  resorted  to.^  The  Duke  of 
York  keenly  felt  his  responsibility  in  this  sad 
affair,  and  did  what  he  could  to  compensate 
Foote  for  his  loss.  Using  his  influence  in  the 
proper  quarter,  the  Duke  succeeded  in  obtaining 
for  Foote  a  patent  for  a  theatre  in  the  city  and 
liberties  of  Westminster,  with  the  privilege  of 
performing  dramatic  entertainments  there  from 
May  15  to  September  15  (inclusive)  during 
the  period  of  his  natural  life.^  Foote's  biogra- 
pher (Cooke)  says  that  he  purchased  the  old 
premises  in  the  Haymarket  and  erected  a  new 
theatre  on  the  same  ground ;  but  it  is  altogether 
likely  that  he  merely  improved  and  occupied 
the  old  theatre  built  by  Potter.^ 

The  patent  thus  granted  to  Foote  created  a 

^  The  accident  happened  on  February  3,  1766.  Mention  is 
made  of  it  in  the  Gentleman's  Magazine  for  February,  1766. 

2  Gentleman's  Magazine,  July,  1766.  "Wed.  9  [July],  1766. 
"  A  Patent  Passed  the  Great  Seal,  to  Samuel  Foote  Esqr.  only." 

^  Baker,  Biographia  Dramatica,  Introduction,  xlv  ;  London 
Magazine,  May,  1767  ;  Public  Advertiser,  July  24,  1766. 


90  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

third  royal  theatre,  though,  it  will  be  observed, 
it  was  to  Foote  solely,  and  was  to  continue 
merely  for  the  lifetime  of  the  original  grantee. 
Furthermore,  it  was  to  operate  during  the  sum- 
mer season  only,  and  hence  could  not  be  con- 
strued as  interfering  with  the  privileges  claimed 
by  the  monopoly.  Foote  began  performing  at 
the  Haymarket  under  his  patent  soon  after  it 
had  passed  the  Great  Seal.  During  his  second 
season  (1767),  a  circumstance  arose  which  threat- 
ened the  success  of  Foote's  establishment.  Barry, 
"the  greatest  of  Eomeos,"  returned  from  Ire- 
land, where  he  had  been  acting,  in  July,  1766, 
and,  together  with  Mrs.  Dancer  (who  later  be- 
came Mrs.  Barry),  Mr.  Lee,  and  others,  rented 
the  Opera  House,  built  by  Vanbrugh  in  the 
Haymarket,  and  began  playing  Shakespeare  to 
enthusiastic  audiences.  The  rivalry  proving  too 
dangerous  to  the  Little  Theatre,  Foote  put  a 
stop  to  it  in  the  most  effectual  (and  modern) 
fashion,  by  securing  the  leading  actors  of  the 
opposing  company  and  taking  them  into  his  own 
employ.^  This  move  necessitated  a  change  of 
program  at  Foote's  theatre:  in  order  to  give 
opportunity  to  the  talents  of  Barry  and  Dancer, 
for  the  remainder  of  the  season  the  legitimate 
drama,  including  Lear^  Venice  Preserved^  etc., 
appeared  pretty  regularly,  in  place  of  the  usual 

^  Cooke,  Memoirs  o/Macklin,  2d  edition,  164-169. 


THE  LICENSING   ACT  IN  PRACTICE      91 

fare  of  comedy  and  farce.  But  at  the  opening 
of  the  winter  season  of  1767,  Garrick,  who  was 
at  the  hehn  at  Drury  Lane,  shrewdly  put  a  stop 
to  these  successes  by  taking  Barry  and  Dancer 
into  the  patent  company. 

Nothing  further,  for  some  years,  occurred  to 
alter  or  in  any  way  affect  the  theatrical  situation 
in  London  as  it  appears  at  the  opening  of  the 
season  of  1768.  Garrick  was  still  at  Drury 
Lane.  John  Rich  had  died  in  1761,  and  was 
succeeded  at  Covent  Garden  by  his  son-in-law, 
Beard,  who,  in  1767,  sold  out  to  Colman, 
Harris,  Powell,  and  Rutherford.  On  the  30th  of 
May,  1768,  Foote  brought  out  his  famous  Devil 
upon  Two  Sticks.  In  the  course  of  the  dialogue, 
towards  the  conclusion  of  the  piece,  occurs  the 
following  interesting  passage  which  contains 
certain  strictures  on  the  patentees  worth  quoting. 
The  Devil  has  just  recommended  Harriet  and 
Invoice  to  go  on  the  stage,  but  adds  that  he  can 
be  of  no  service  in  getting  them  employment 
either  at  Drury  Lane  or  Covent  Garden. 

"  Invoice.  No  ?  I  thought.  Sir,  you  told  me 
just  now,  that  the  several  arts  of  the  Drama 
were  under  your  direction. 

"  Devil.  So  they  were  formerly ;  but  now  they 
are  directed  by  the  Genius  of  Insipidity :  he 
has  entered  into  partnership  with  the  Managers 
of  both  houses,  and  they  have  set  up  a  kind  of 


92  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

circulating  library,  for  the  vending  of  dialogue 
novels,  —  I  dare  not  go  near  the  new  house,  for 
the  Demon  of  Power,  who  gave  me  this  lameness, 
has  possessed  the  j)ates,  and  sowed  discord 
among  the  mock  monarchs  there ;  and  what  one 
receives  the  other  rejects,^ — and  as  to  the  other 
house,  the  manager  has  great  merit  in  himself, 
with  skill  to  discern  and  candour  to  allow  it  in 
others ;  but  I  can  be  of  no  use  in  making  your 
bargain,  for  in  that  he  would  be  too  many  for 
the  cunningest  Devil  amongst  us.^ 

"  Invoice.  I  have  heard  of  a  new  playhouse  in 
the  Haymarket. 

"  Devil.  What,  Foote's  ?  Oh,  that 's  an  eccen- 
tric, narrow  establishment :  however,  it  may  do 
for  a  couj)  cVessai  and  prove  no  bad  foundation 
for  a  future  engagement." 

In  February,  1773,  Foote  announced  his 
"  Primitive  Puppet  Show,"  and  before  the  mid- 
dle of  April  had  given  it  seventeen  times.  Tlie 
Sentimental  Comedy  was  also  acted  at  the  Hay- 
market  before  the  15th  of  May,  and  as  late  as 
the  18th  of  Sejitember.  Other  pieces  were  per- 
formed out  of  the  season  limit  of  the  patent,  but 
the  jealous  eyes  of  the  patentees,  especially  of 
Garrick,  were  on  the  movements  of  the  freak  at 

^  Referring  to  the  notorious  quarrels  of  the  managers  at 
Covent  Garden. 

-  A  hit,  of  course,  at  Garrick's  close-fisted  business  charac- 
teristic. 


THE   LICENSING  ACT  IN   PRACTICE      93 

the  Haymarket,  and  any  irregularities  there,  in 
the  way  of  stretching  privileges,  were  almost  al- 
ways "by  permission"  and  usually  for  some  per- 
former's benefit.  As  an  example  of  the  extreme 
vigilance  exercised  by  the  patentees,  in  May, 
1776,  when  Foote  opened  the  Haymarket  for 
the  summer  season,  he  shut  it  again  at  once 
because  Drury  Lane  had  not  yet  closed.  Finally, 
in  1777,  Foote  sold  his  patent  to  George  Colman 
(the  elder),  who  at  once  disposed  of  his  share  in 
the  Covent  Garden  management  and  devoted  his 
attention  to  his  new  purchase.^  But  it  should  be 
observed  that  the  tenure  under  which  Coleman 
managed  the  Haymarket  Theatre  was  not,  as  is 
usually  supposed,  the  same  as  that  by  which  Foote 
claimed  privileges.  Colman  held  by  virtue  of  an 
annualliceiise^  issued  by  the  Lord  Chamberlain  ;^ 
and,  although  the  Little  Theatre  continued  to 
be  called  a  royal  theatre,  probably  because  of 
its  origin,  it  was  in  reality  on  the  same  precarious 
footing  as  the  other  theatrical  concerns  which, 
later,  made  their  appearance. 

The  circumstance  noted  in  the  foregoing  para- 
graph, of  the  Drury  Lane  Theatre  keeping  its 

^  Foote  was  to  receive  ^1600  per  annum  during  his  life ; 
Coleman  was  to  receive,  in  addition  to  the  theatre  and  ward- 
robe, all  of  Foote's  unpublished  pieces.  As  Foote  died  soon 
after  this  transaction,  Colman,  it  would  seem,  made  rather  a 
good  bargain.    Oulton,  History  of  Theatres  of  London,  i,  57. 

^  Colman,  Random  Records,  i,  235. 


94  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

door  open  in  17TG  until  after  the  15th  of  May, 
that  is,  until  after  the  opening  of  the  Ilaymarket 
season,  was  not,  as  might  appear  on  a  casual 
observation,  purely  fortuitous.  It  really  marks 
the  beginning  of  a  new  policy  adopted  by  the 
patentees  to  counteract  the  growing  popularity 
of  the  summer  theatre.  For  some  time,  Garrick 
had  manifested  a  jealousy  of  Foote's  success^ 
and,  on  occasion,  had  become  even  apprehensive. 
For  example,  when  Foote  advertised  his  "  Pup- 
pet Show  "  in  1773,  Garrick  was  noticeably  ner- 
vous until  he  knew  just  what  Foote  intended 
to  do.  As  early  as  17G7,  the  success  of  Barry 
and  Dancer  at  the  Haymarket  aroused  the  envy 
of  the  Drury  Lane  manager.  The  successors  of 
Garrick  were  no  less  vigilant.  Now,  the  patents 
granted  to  Killigrew  and  Davenant  contained 
no  restrictions  respecting  the  length  of  the  theat- 
rical season ;  custom  alone  had  fixed  the  limits. 
Foote's  patent  did  restrict  him  to  a  definite 
period,  beyond  which  he  dared  not  go  without 
"  permission  ;  "  while,  if  the  patentees  were  so 
disposed,  there  was  nothing  to  prevent  them  from 
encroaching,  ad  libitum^  on  the  season  of  the 
summer  theatre.  That  such  a  course  was  the 
deliberate  plan  of  the  Drury  Lane  managers  is 
proved  by  subsequent  events.  The  elder  Col- 
man  opened  his  first  season  at  the  Haymarket 
at  the  usual  time,  May  15 ;  and,  just  as  Foote 


THE  LICENSING  ACT  IN   PRACTICE      95 

had  done  the  preceding  year,  closed  it  again 
until  the  28th  of  May,  when  he  reopened  the 
house  for  three  performances  a  week  until  June 
11,  after  which,  for  the  remainder  of  the  season, 
the  Haymarket  was  open  six  nights  each  week. 
The  younger  Colman  in  his  Random  Records 
has  explained  the  irregularity  of  the  perform- 
ances at  the  Haymarket  in  1777  as  follows :  — 

"  The  closing  of  the  Theatre  directly  after  the 
opening  on  the  15th  of  May  ...  is  easily  ac- 
counted for,  by  the  attempt  to  enter  into  a  com- 
petition with  the  two  great  Winter  Houses  ;  — 
The  Proprietors  of  which  were  not  yet  prepar- 
ing to  shut  their  doors  for  the  summer.  Empty 
benches  at  the  Haymarket  were  the  consequence 
of  this  experiment ;  —  and  no  wonder,  when  so 
weak  a  rivalry,  in  an  incipient  scheme,  was  set 
up  against  the  attractions  at  Drury  Lane  and 
Co  vent  Garden." 

The  charitable,  or  innocent,  way  in  which  this 
explanation  is  put  shows  clearly  that  the  right 
of  the  patentees  to  continue  their  performances 
into  the  summer  was  not  qestioned,  at  that  time, 
by  the  manager  of  the  Haymarket.  It  may  in- 
dicate, also,  that  the  real  motive  of  the  patentees 
in  extending  their  season  was  scarcely  under- 
stood by  the  proprietor  of  the  summer  house. 
But  a  continued  repetition  of  the  tactics  was 
sure  to  induce  the  suspicion  that  the  action  of 


9G  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

the  patent  houses  was  the  result  of  a  precon- 
certed plan.  Again  in  1779,  Colman  felt  under 
the  necessity  of  deferring  the  commencement 
of  his  season  until  May  31,  because  the  actors 
on  whom  he  was  dependent  were  engaged  at  one 
or  other  of  the  "great"  houses,  and  the  latter 
continued  their  performances  until  the  last  of 
May.*  These  belated  openings  of  the  Haymarket 
continued  without  interruption  or  active  opposi- 
tion until  the  season  of  1787,  when  the  manager 
made  a  vigorous  attempt  to  run  his  establish- 
ment without  regard  to  the  programmes  at  the 
winter  theatres.  But  the  Haymarket  manager 
uttei'ly  failed  in  his  aggressive  policy.  Two  years 
later  (1789),  Colman  again  put  on  a  bold  front, 
this  time  adopting  the  maxim  that  "the  devil 
can  be  fought  only  with  fire,"  and  competed  with 
Covent  Garden  in  the  character  of  the  perform- 
ances put  on  at  the  Haymarket,  by  reducing  the 
Miser  to  three  acts.^ 

By  this  time  the  meaning  of  the  contest  be- 
tween the  patentees  and  the  manager  of  the 
Little  Theatre  in  the  Haymarket  had  become 
perfectly  apparent.  The  struggle  had  gradually 
assumed  such  proportions  that  it  was  a  question 
whether  the  monopoly  would  allow  any  theatrical 

1  Oulton,  History  of  Theatres  of  London,  etc.  (2  vols.),  i,  82, 
164. 

'^  London  Chronicle,  May  26,  1789. 


THE   LICENSING  ACT  IN   PRACTICE      97 

diversions  in  London,  except  those  under  the 
immediate  control  of  the  patentees  themselves. 
But  the  mode  of  extermination  adopted  by  the 
winter  theatres  could  not  be  conducted  without 
some  compensatory  losses.  "  The  winter  man- 
agers," comments  the  editor  of  Toum  and  Coun- 
try Magazine  for  June,  1789,  "  make  approaches 
every  season  towards  continuing  their  houses 
open  during  the  summer  season — but  in  our 
opinion  they  must  always  lose  in  the  experiment 
as  a  recess  is  necessary  to  excite  curiosity." 
However,  it  appears  at  first  sight  that  the  con- 
test was  too  unequal  to  cause  serious  damage  to 
the  two  old  houses.  But  the  struggle  had  hardly 
yet  commenced,  and  it  was  too  early  to  predict 
results.  Meantime,  an  episode  of  peculiar  inter- 
est had  occurred  to  absorb  the  attention  of  the 
London  public,  and  to  turn  aside,  for  the  mo- 
ment, the  warfare  between  the  patentees  and  the 
Little  Theatre  in  the  Haymarket.  Before  re- 
suming the  latter  subject,  it  may  be  well  to  take 
account  of  the  curious  incident  alluded  to.^ 

1  The  following  chronology  may  be  of  service  in  keeping 
straight  the  events  of  the  next  few  years  :  In  1774,  Lacey  died, 
leaving  Garrick  sole  proprietor  of  Drury  Lane ;  in  1776, 
Garrick  sold  ont  to  Thomas  Sheridan,  Linley,  and  Ford ;  in 
1777,  the  elder  Colman  purchased  the  Haymarket,  leaving 
Harris  and  Powell  at  Covent  Garden.  In  1779,  Garrick  died. 
R.  B.  Sheridan  succeeded  Thomas  at  Drury  Lane  soon  after 
the  transfer  of  1776. 


CHAPTER    V 

THE   ROYALTY   THEATRE 

BACK  in  the  days  when  the  inimitable 
Foots  was  amusing  the  pubhc  with  that 
new  species  of  theatrical  entertainment  called 
"A  Dish  of  Tea,"  there  was  in  that  eccentric 
comedian's  train  of  admirers  a  lad  who  was 
destined  to  all  the  buffets,  with  but  little  of  the 
glory,  of  the  actor's  lot.  This  was  John  Palmer, 
"  Plausible  Jack,"  a  kind-hearted,  irresponsible, 
lack-judgment,  devil-may-care  sort  of  a  fellow, 
who,  as  usual  with  such  characters,  laid  the 
consequences  of  his  own  follies  at  the  door  of 
his  fellow  creatures,  or  to  the  account  of  fate. 

Palmer  had  a  predilection  for  the  stage,  if  for 
anything,  from  early  youth  ;  and,  by  one  of  the 
many  chances  which  marked  his  course  through 
life,  was  turned  into  that  profession.  Nor  was  he 
by  any  means  devoid  of  all  the  elements  belong- 
ing to  the  histrionic  art,  although  he  received 
rebuffs,  time  and  again,  on  his  applying  to  Gar- 
rick,  "  the  great  little  man."  However,  after  a 
checkered  career  as  an  itinerant  actor  among  the 
provincial   theatres,  Palmer  finally  secured   an 


THE  ROYALTY  THEATRE  99 

engagement  with  Foote,  on  the  opening  of  the 
Haymarket  under  the  patent  in  1767,  and,  soon 
after,  succeeded  in  getting  a  minor  part  in  the 
Drury  Lane  company.  With  the  Haymarket 
under  Cohnan,  and  Drury  Lane  under  Sheri- 
dan, Linley,  and  Ford,  Palmer  became  a  regular 
performer  at  both  theatres,  and  rose  to  a  respect- 
able position  in  the  leading  comic  characters.  As 
the  original  Joseph  Surface,  he  may  be  said  to 
have  fairly  secured  his  reputation  as  an  actor.^ 

But  John  Palmer  could  endure  success  no 
better  than  poverty  and  obscurity.  No  sooner 
had  he  been  established  on  his  comedian's  throne 
than  schemes  of  a  wilder  ambition  than  he  had 
yet  dreamed  of  took  possession  of  him.  He  would 
build  and  manage  a  theatre  of  his  own  in  the 
metropolis !  To  this  venture  he  had  probably 
been  impelled  by  the  injudicious  advice  of 
friends.  The  plan  was  to  go  to  the  East  End 
of  the  city  and  there  erect  a  theatre,  for  which 
purpose  the  audacious  Palmer  secured  a  suffi- 
cient  loan ;  and  on  the  26th  of  December,  1785, 
the  first  stone  of  the  new  structure  was  laid  by 
the  projector  himself.  The  occasion  was  the 
scene  of  a  grand  procession,  and  the  ceremonies 
at  the  laying  of  the  corner-stone  went  off  with 

^  For  contemporaneous  accounts  of  the  life  of  John  Palmer, 
see  The  General  Magazine  for  January,  February,  and  March, 
1788.     Also  The  Monthly  Visitor  for  December,  1798. 


100  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE  " 

a  great  flourish.^  In  a  receptacle  prepared  for 
the  purpose,  the  following  inscription  was  de- 
posited, after  it  had  been  read  first  by  the 
Kecorder  of  Maidstone  :  — 

"  The  Inscription  on  this  Scroll  is  intend- 
ed to  convey 
The  following  Information,  — 
That 
On  Monday  the  2(;th  day  of  December, 
In  the  year  of  our  Lord  1785, 

And 
In  the  26th  year  of  the  Reign 
Of  our  most  Gracious  Sovereign 

GEORGE    THE    THIRD, 
The  first  stone  of  a  BuUding, 
Intended  for  a  Place  of  Public  Entertain- 
ment, 
was  laid  by 
JOHN    PALMER,    COMEDIAN, 
In  the  presence  of  a  numerous  Party  of 

Friends  to  the  Undertaking ; 
John  Wilmot,  Esq,  being  the  Architect 
and  Builder, 
Tlie  Ground  selected  for  the  Purpose 
Being  situated  within  the  Liberty 
OF 
His  Majesty's  Fortress  and 
Palace 
Of  the  Tower  of  London 
It  has  been  resolved,  that  in  honour  of  the  Mag- 
istrates, the  Military  Officers,  and  Inhabitants  of  the 
said  fortress  and  palace,  the  edifice,  when  erected, 
shall  be  called, 

THE   ROYALTY   THEATRE. 
Sanctioned  by   authority,  and   liberally  patronized 
by  subscription." 
1  Town   and  Country   Magazine  for  July,  1787.    Oulton,  i, 
167-196. 


THE   ROYALTY   THEATRE  101 

This  was  the  beginning  of  the  Royalty  Theatre, 
auspicious  enough,  indeed,  but  the  sequel  proved 
that  the  attempt  fell  on  evil  days.  It  was  about 
a  year  and  a  half  from  the  breaking  of  the  ground 
in  Wellclose  Square  until  the  new  theatre  was 
completed.  From  all  accounts  the  structure,  both 
exterior  and  interior,  was  the  most  beautifid  and 
most  convenient  of  the  London  theatres,  at  the 
time  it  was  built.  It  was  120  feet  in  length,  56 
feet  in  breadth ;  and,  by  accurate  computation, 
was  capable  of  seating  2594  persons.^ 

Several  days  before  the  announced  opening  of 
the  new  theatre,  a  "house-warming"  was  indulged 
in  by  the  manager,  the  subscribers,  and  friends 
to  the  undertaking,  all  of  whom  were  invited  by 
card,  after  the  most  approved  fashion.  By  seven 
o'clock  of  the  appointed  evening  (Saturday,  June 
9,  1787),  a  "brilliant  audience  were  assembled." 
The  house  was  crowded  from  pit  to  gallery,  many 
having  to  be  turned  away  for  lack  of  room.  The 
building  was  brightly  illuminated,  and  when  the 
curtain  went  up,  discovering  to  the  admiring 
gaze  of  the  spectators  the  magnificence  of  deco- 
ration and  the  convenience  of  arrangement,  the 
highest  praise  was  called  forth  from  those  present. 

To  entertain  and  gratify  the  invited  guests,  a 

1  For  a  complete  description  of  the  Royalty  Theatre,  see 
Gentleman's  Magazine  for  June,  1787.  See  also  General  Maga- 
zine for  same  date,  i,  p.  49. 


102  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

number  of  scenes  (painted  by  Dixon)  were  ex- 
hibited, "which,  by  judges  of  the  art,  are  allowed 
to  be  capitally  executed,"  while  some  vocal  pieces 
were  rendered  with  "exquisite  taste."  Delpini, 
who  had  been  secured  for  the  occasion,  created 
some  amusement  by  a  burlesque  air,  humorously 
accompanied  on  the  guitar.  At  this  juncture  Mr. 
Palmer  entered  the  orchestra  amidst  applause 
from  every  part  of  the  theatre ;  "  which  continu- 
ing long  and  violent,  he  stood  on  the  seat  appro- 
priated to  the  band,  and  several  times  bowed  in 
return  for  the  flattering  distinction."  After  re- 
freshments had  been  served,  the  assemblage, 
which  consisted  of  "  some  of  the  most  respectable 
families  in  the  vicinage,  the  magistrates,  and 
several  persons  of  eminence  in  the  city,"  began 
to  disperse ;  but  first,  "  by  mutual  smiles,  testified 
the  pleasure  which  so  elegant  a  spectacle  had 
afforded  them."  *  The  opening  of  the  Eoyalty  for 
regular  theatrical  performances  was  announced 
for  June  20,  1787. 

During  all  the  time,  be  it  observed,  that 
Palmer  had  been  pursuing  his  Royalty  scheme, 
he  had  been  engaged  at  Drury  Lane  in  the 
winter  season,  and  at  the  Haymarket  during  the 
summer.  On  just  what  legal  authority,  or  in 
what  capacity,  Palmer  intended  to  conduct  his 
new  theatre,  he  had  kept  scrupulously  to  himself, 
*  London  Chronicle,  Monday,  June  11,  1787. 


THE  ROYALTY  THEATRE  103 

either  evading  or  dissimulating  when  questioned 
on  this  point,  but  leaving  the  impression  that  he 
felt  perfectly  secure  in  his  movements.  A  few 
days  prior  to  the  advertised  opening  of  the  Roy- 
alty, Messrs.  Harris,  Linley,  and  Colman,  man- 
agers of  Co  vent  Garden,  Drury  Lane,  and  the 
Haymarket,  respectively,  caused  to  be  published 
in  the  newspapers  of  the  day  extracts  from  the 
various  Vagrant  and  Vagabond  acts,  and  accom- 
panied these  with  a  joint  resolution  to  enforce 
the  same  against  Palmer  should  he  attempt  to 
open  his  theatre  in  defiance  of  those  statutes.* 
This  action  caused  the  leading  performers,  en- 
gaged for  the  Royalty,  to  decline  to  enter  into 
any  transactions  that  might  make  them  liable 
to  prosecution  and  fine  for  acting  for  "  hire, 
gain,  or  reward."  However,  Palmer  went  forward 
with  his  preparations  for  the  opening,  but  was 
under  the  necessity  of  announcing  that  the  pro- 
ceeds of  the  evening  would  be  devoted  to  the 
benefit  of  the  London  Hospital. 

On  the  evening  of  June  20,  1787,  the  Royalty 
Theatre  was  thrown  open  to  the  public  to  witness 
the  first  performance.  The  house  was  crowded 
and  the  competition  for  places  was  very  marked. 
When  the  curtain  arose  (at  seven  o'clock),  some 

1  General  Magazine,  June,  1787 ;  Oulton,  i,  167-196.  It  is 
curious  to  note  that,  in  the  face  of  a  common  enemy,  the  three 
Royal  Theatres  buried  all  difFerences  among  themselves. 


104  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

little  disturbance  was  caused  by  a  few  persons 
calling  for  Palmer's  ])ateut.  The  suave  manager 
came  forward  and  after  appealing  to  the  audience 
not  to  give  cause  of  complaint  to  his  enemies 
by  boisterous  conduct,  delivered  an  address  (writ- 
ten by  Arthur  Murphy),  containing  the  follow- 
ing lines  in  reference  to  the  opposition  of  the 
patent  theatres  to  the  new  Royalty :  — 

"Yet  some  there  are  who  would  our  scheme  annoy; 
'Tis  a  monopoly  they  would  enjoy. 
Th'  Haymarket,  C event  Garden  and  Old  Drury 
Send  forth  their  edicts  '  full  of  sound  and  fury.' 
Three  jarring  States  ^  are  leagu'd  in  jealous  fit, 
And  they  —  whom  wit  maintains  —  wage  war  on  wit. 
But  wit,  like  day-light,  nothing  should  restrain, 
The  same  in  Goodman's-fields  and  Drury-lane. 
And  if  the  Drama  list  on  Virtue's  side. 
Say  —  can  the  moral  be  diffus'd  too  wide! 
If  the  sun  gild  yon  West  with  golden  ray, 
The  East  ^  may  feel  the  beam  of  rising  day- 
Like  gen'rous  rivals  let  all  parties  boast 
One  only  struggle  —  Who  shall  please  you  most ; 
Fines  and  imprisonment  no  more  proclaim. 
But  praise  the  soil  from  which  our  Garrick  came."* 

This  was  followed  by  the  representation  of  As 
You  Like  It,  and  an  after-piece,  3Iiss  in  Her 

1  Alluding  to  the  strifes  of  the  patentees,  and  the  war  of 
encroachments  between  the  winter  houses  and  the  Haymarket. 

■^  The  Royalty  Theatre  was  situated  in  the  East  End  of 
London  ;  the  royal  theatres  at  the  West  End. 

^  Garrick  made  his  first  appearance  in  London  at  Goodman's 
Fields,  near  the  site  of  the  Royalty. 


THE   ROYALTY  THEATRE  105 

Teens.  At  the  close  of  the  performance,  Palmer 
made  his  appearance  before  the  audience  and 
addressed  them  on  the  subject  of  the  founding 
of  the  new  theatre  and  of  the  "jealous  opposi- 
tion" of  the  old  theatres.  At  this  time,  he  made 
public  the  authority  on  which  he  had  founded  the 
hopes  of  the  Royalty.  He  had,  he  said,  deemed 
the  license  of  the  Governor  of  the  Tower,  and  the 
Magistrates  of  the  Hamlets  attached  to  its  juris- 
diction, sufficient  sanction  for  the  acting  of  plays 
in  that  district.  He  complained  bitterly  of  the 
action  of  the  three  managers  in  waiting  till  the 
last  moment,  after  he  had  gone  to  the  expense 
of  erecting  and  furnishing  the  theatre,  before 
raising  any  objections  to  the  project.  The  atti- 
tude of  Mr.  Colman  was  characterized  as  par- 
ticularly unfair,  for,  said  Palmer,  "  in  the  course 
of  the  last  summer,  when  I  performed  at  the 
Little  Theatre  in  the  Haymarket,  Mr.  Colman 
wrote  a  Prologue,  which  I  spoke  on  my  benefit 
night,  and  among  others,  were  the  following 
lines :  ^  — 

"  For  me  whose  utmost  aim  is  your  delight, 
Accept  the  humble  off'ring  of  this  night  ; 
To  please,  wherever  plac'd,  be  still  my  care, 
At  Drury,  Haymarket,  or  Wellclose-Square." 

"  As  Mr.  Colman  knew  the  plan  I  had  then  in 

1  In  Prolog'ue  to  the  Comedy  of  Tit  for  Tat.    See  European 
Magazine,  September,  1786. 


lOG  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

view,  it  was  fair  to  conclude  that  he  did  not 
meditate  an  opposition." 

Of  the  Covent  Garden  manager,  Pahner  al- 
leged that  he  had  given  his  consent  in  writing 
for  one  of  his  actors.  Quick,  to  engage  at  the 
Royalty.  That  the  patentee  should  now  be  found 
in  active  opposition  to  the  new  theatre  was  suf- 
ficient cause  for  astonishment  and  chagrin  ;  while 
the  enforcement  of  an  act  of  Parliament  against 
one  attempting  to  represent  a  moral  exhibition 
was  a  hardship  and  an  injustice.  "Tumblers 
and  Dancing  Dogs  might  appear  unmolested  be- 
fore you :  but  the  other  performers  and  myself, 
standing  forward  to  exhibit  a  moral  play,  is 
deemed  a  crime."  The  address  closed  with  the 
announcement  that  the  theatre  would  be  shut 
until  a  species  of  entertainment  could  be  pro- 
vided that  would  not  subject  the  manager  to 
danger.^ 

This  address  aroused  the  sympathy  of  the 
public  in  Palmer's  behalf,  and  had  the  immedi- 
ate effect  of  bringing  on  a  paper  warfare ;  for 
the  managers,  whose  characters  had  been  ex- 
posed to  public  view  in  a  contemptible  light,  felt 
it  incumbent  on  themselves  to  explain  their  atti- 

^  For  accounts  of  the  opening  night,  see  European  Magazine 
for  June,  1787 ;  Town  and  Country  Magazine  for  July,  1787 ; 
General  Magazine,  June,  1787 ;  London  Chronicle,  June  22, 
1787. 


THE  ROYALTY  THEATRE  107 

tudes.  In  answer  to  the  charge  of  duplicity,  the 
elder  Colman  authorized  the  editor  of  the  "  Lon- 
don Chronicle "  (June  23,  1787)  to  say,  that 
before  the  lines  referred  to  in  the  Prologue  by 
Palmer  were  either  spoken  or  written,  not  only 
was  the  Royalty  Theatre  well  under  way,  but 
also  that  he  (Colman)  had  been  assured  by 
Palmer  that  the  latter's  plans  in  no  wise  con- 
tained anything  that  would  interfere  with  the 
interests  of  the  Haymarket  Theatre ;  that,  in- 
deed, the  chief  object  of  the  undertaking  was  to 
engage  the  public  attention  for  the  winter  sea- 
son ;  that  to  these  assurances  Palmer  added  a 
ready  concurrence  to  a  proposed  renewal  of  his 
engagement  at  the  Haymarket  Theatre,  but  that 
instead  of  carrying  this  proposal  into  effect 
he  had  evaded  the  matter  of  reengaging  with 
Colman  until  February  (1787),  when  the  latter 
notified  him  that  if  he  did  not  make  an  imme- 
diate engagement,  he  would  be  considered  as 
having  withdrawn  himself  from  the  company  in 
the  Haymarket ;  and,  finally,  under  pressure  of 
this  ultimatum.  Palmer  had  signed  an  agreement 
for  the  summer  season  of  1787,  though  appar- 
ently offended  at  the  lack  of  confidence  evinced 
by  Colman  on  the  occasion. 

Harris  of  Covent  Garden  likewise  felt  him- 
self in  the  position  of  self-defense,  and,  in  a 
public  letter,  answered  Palmer's  allegations.    He 


108  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

explained  that  it  was  hardly  within  the  jurisdic- 
tion of  the  patentees  to  notify  any  one  of  the 
existence  of  a  law  so  notorious  as  the  VajTrant 
and  Vagabond  Act ;  that  as  to  the  lateness  of  the 
notice  served  on  Palmer  that  he  would  be  pro- 
secuted if  he  attempted  to  open  the  Royalty, 
Palmer  himself  was  to  blame  for  that,  since  he 
kept  the  source  of  his  authority  a  secret  until 
the  Monday  preceding  the  20th  of  June ;  and 
that  the  opposition  of  the  i^atentees  could  be 
justified  on  the  ground  of  protection  to  their 
"legal  monopoly."  As  to  the  correspondence  with 
Quick,  referred  to  by  Palmer,  Harris  quoted  the 
same  letter,  showing  that  he  had  made  no  active 
opposition  to  the  Covent  Garden  performers 
engaging  at  the  Royalty  Theatre.^ 

Palmer  returned  to  the  attack  in  a  full-page 
letter  to  the  "  London  Chronicle "  (June  26, 
1787).  Harris  was  the  main  target  for  the  Roy- 
alty manager's  invectives.  As  to  the  "  legal  mo- 
nopoly "  being  in  danger  of  the  rivalry  of  a  new 
theatre,  Palmer  asserted  that  he  had  formerly 
proposed  to  the  managers  of  the  winter  houses, 
that  if  they  would  abandon  their  prosecutions  and 
acquiesce  in  the  opening  of  the  Royalty  Theatre, 
he  (Palmer)  would  agree  to  shut  his  theatre 
the  day  prior  to  the  commencement  of  the 
winter  theatres,  and  that  Harris  had  treated  this 
1  London  Chronicle,  June  22,  1787. 


THE  ROYALTY  THEATRE  109 

proposal  with  disdain.  "  Protected  in  a  legal 
monopoly^  he  would  not  yield,  even  when  yield- 
ing might  have  redounded  to  the  credit  of  his 
liberality,  and  could  not  by  any  means  have  been 
detrimental  to  his  present  property,  or  eventual 
interest.  So  much  for  the  spirit  of  rivalry, 
which,  in  the  true  Turkish  stile,  actuates  Mr. 
Harris  to  bear  no  brother  near  the  throne." 

Relative  to  Harris's  denial  of  "  active  opposi- 
tion," Palmer  insinuated  that  the  Covent  Gar- 
den manager  went  among  the  different  perform- 
ers, dissuading  them,  "and  by  every  species  of 
menace  endeavored  to  deter  them  from  appear- 
ing on  Mr.  Palmer's  boards ;  "  that  the  same 
person  was  "  closeted  with  Sir  Sampson  Wright, 
in  deliberation  on  the  methods  to  be  taken  to 
prevent  Mr.  Palmer  from  pei'forming;  "  that  he 
prepared  "  the  only  magistrate  for  the  Tower 
Royalty,  in  the  mode  by  which  he  could  conduct 
himself  to  suppress  and  ultimately  ruin  Mr. 
Palmer  ;  "  that  he  encouraged  informers,  and 
"  had  the  information  in  style  ready  cut  and 
dried ; "  and  that  in  the  very  letter  from  Harris 
to  Quick,  there  was  a  threat  to  prosecute  as 
"  rogues  and  vagabonds  "  those  actors  engaging 
with  Palmer.  All  of  this  seemed  to  Palmer  to 
bear  the  marks  of  "  active  opposition."  ^ 

^  The  quarrel  was  taken  up  by  the  pamphleteer :  A  Review 
of  the  Present    Contest   between   the   Managers,   favoring   the 


110  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

These  recriminations,  when  reduced  to  their 
lowest  terms,  that  is,  divorced  from  the  personal 
element,  may  be  simplified  to  the  bare  statement 
that  Palmer,  in  attempting  to  open  the  Royalty 
Theatre,  was  violating  what  had  come  to  be  the 
leading  clause  of  the  Licensing  Act ;  and  that 
the  patentees  were  determined  to  defend  the 
advantageous  position  which  that  act  gave  them. 
The  incident  is  the  first  flagant  example  of  utter 
defiance  of  that  act,  during  the  first  half  century 
of  its  operation  ;  for  the  contest  which  had  sprung 
up  between  the  Little  Theatre  and  the  patent 
houses  had  not  grown  out  of  any  palpable  in- 
fraction of  the  written  statute.  How  Palmer 
could  have  been  allured  into  the  self-deception 
of  believing  that  his  scheme  had  even  a  fair 
chance  of  success,  is  beyond  the  power  of  under- 
standing. He  must  have  known  that  the  mandate 
of  the  Governor  of  the  Tower  was  inferior  to  an 
Act  of  Parliament,  else  why  did  he  guard  the 
secret  of  his  authority  ?  If  he  placed  his  depend- 
ence on  the  moral  support  of  public  opinion,  it 
would  seem  that  he  should  have  waited  until 
that  public  opinion  had  been  tested,  before 
making  a  material  sacrifice  of  himself  and  his 
friends.    Furthermore,  the  least  appreciation  of 

Royalty,  was  refuted  by  A  Very  Plain  State  of  the  Case,  or,  The 
Royalty  Theatre  versus  the  Theatres  Royal, —  probably  by 
Colman. 


THE  ROYALTY  THEATRE      111 

the  meaning  of  the  theatrical  events  of  his  own 
times  would  have  assured  him  that  the  patentees 
would  be  "  actively  opposed  "  to  any  and  all 
efforts  to  break  through  the  walls  of  their  "  legal 
monopoly."  It  was  sheer  waste  of  time  to  accuse 
the  patent  managers  of  duplicity  and  illiberality  ; 
as  Harris  asserted  in  his  open  correspondence, 
he  was  simply  following  the  instinct  of  self- 
preservation,  a  line  of  conduct  which  Palmer 
himself  would  have  adopted  could  he  have 
changed  positions  with  any  one  of  the  patentees. 
The  fact  is,  that  in  Palmer's  whole  procedure  in 
the  Royalty  affair,  audacity  strove  with  lack  of 
judgment  and  foresight  for  mastery. 

The  next  morning  after  the  opening  (and  clos- 
ing) of  the  Royalty,  Palmer  assembled  his  crest- 
fallen company  in  the  green-room  of  the  theatre 
and  delivered  himself  of  the  following  character- 
istic speech : 

"  Ladies  and  Gentlemen, 

"  The  combination  formed  against  my  new  un- 
dertaking may  have  occasioned  you  to  suppose 
yourselves  deserted.  I  am  the  injured  party,  and 
as  a  proof  that  I  wish  to  be  considered  exclu- 
sively in  that  light,  I  mean  to  do  everything  in 
my  power  to  take  care  of  you.  I  have  engaged 
you  respectively  at  certain  salaries.  The  house 
is  now  shut,  and  you  cannot  be  of  use  to  me ; 


112  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

but  God  forbid  that  you  should  be  sufferers  by 
the  combination  against  me!  Until  the  theatre 
shall  open,  which  will  be  soon,  I  will  allow  each 
of  you  half  the  amount  of  your  salaries ;  and 
when  the  theatre  opens,  should  not  one  of  you 
be  of  service  to  me  in  the  capacity  of  an  actor, 
or  an  actress,  you  shall  all  receive  your  salaries, 
for  the  continuance  of  the  season.  My  friend 
is  not  here,  but  I  can  answer  for  him  in  point 
of  liberality.  God  bless  you  all.  I  feel  myself 
bound  to  protect  you  as  parts  of  my  family."  ^ 

In  less  than  two  weeks  from  the  abortive 
attempt  to  open  the  Royal  Theatre  with  the 
regular  drama,  on  the  3d  of  July,  Palmer  re- 
opened the  house  with  exhibitions  similar  in 
character  to  the  performances  at  Sadler's  Wells, 
Astley's,  and  other  places  of  amusements  in 
which  "  theatrical  entertainments,"  as  generally 
understood  by  the  Licensing  Act,  were  not  in- 
cluded. Such  performances  comprised  burlettas, 
dances,  pantomimes,  and  the  like,  in  contradis- 
tinction to  the  regular  drama,  of  which  the 
patentees  claimed  a  "  legal  monopoly."  Palmer 
prefaced   the  evening's  entertainment  with  an 

^  London  Chronicle,  June  23,1787.  "My  friend"  probably 
refers  to  Dr.  Jackson,  who  was  indorsing  Palmer's  scheme. 
Jackson  is  the  supposed  author  of  Sodom  arid  Onan,  a  scurril- 
ous attack  on  Foote. 


THE   ROYALTY   THEATRE  113 

occasion  address,  written  on  the  subject  of  the 
opposition  made  to  the  Royalty  Theatre  by  the 
patentees  and  Colman.  This  was  followed  by  a 
musical  pastoral,  The  Birthday,  or  Arcadian 
Contest,  and  a  new  dance  called  The  Triumph 
of  Cupid.  The  evening  closed  with  a  panto- 
mime, Hohsons  Choice,  or  Thespis  in  Distress, 
a  hit  at  the  patent  houses,  and  well  received.^ 
This  bill,  with  additional  and  occasional  varia- 
tions, was  repeated  a  number  of  times  with  con- 
siderable success,  meriting  the  approbation  of 
theatre  critics.^ 

Indeed,  so  successful  was  the  irrepressible 
Palmer  with  his  singing,  dancing,  and  dumb- 
show  exhibitions,  that,  even  with  this  reduced 
order  of  performance,  the  jealousy  and  anger 
of  the  patentees  were  aroused  anew,  and  every 
action  at  the  Royalty  was  scrutinized  in  the 
hope  that  some  violation  of  the  Licensing  Act 
might  be  detected.  Threats  were  made  that  any 
attempt  to  speak  in  a  pantomimic  performance 
would  be  interpreted  as  dialogue,  and  prosecuted 
as  representing  the  regular  drama  !  By  some 
indiscretion,  it  seems  that  one  of  the  performers 
in  a  dumb-show  uttered  a  word  or  two.  The  ex- 
ecution of  the  managers'  threats  began  when  the 

^  London  Chronicle,  July  4,  1787. 

'  London  Chronicle,  August  15,  1787 ;  European  Magazine, 
vol.  xii,  63. 


114  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

elder  Bannister  ^  and  the  younger  Palmer  were, 
in  consequence  of  informations,  convicted  as  va- 
grants in  Justice  Staples's  court  and  committed 
for  fourteen  days.  The  case,  however,  having 
been  transferred  to  the  court  of  James  Robinson, 
William  Robinson,  and  Richard  Brooke,  Justices 
of  the  Peace  for  the  Tower  Hamlets,  the  prison- 
ers were  discharged  on  bail.' 

But  the  affair  was  not  to  end  here.  The  action 
of  the  second  justice's  court,  in  reversing  the 
decision  of  the  first,  was  something  more  than 
professional  discourtesy  ;  it  was  a  conflict  of 
authority  within  the  same  district,  which  de- 
manded a  hearing  in  Westminster  Hall.  The 
case  dragged  on  for  months.  On  the  first  day 
of  February,  1788,  we  find  the  following  record  : 
"  In  the  Court  of  King's  Bench  a  second  rule 
was  made  absolute  against  two  magistrates  of 
the  Tower  Hamlets,  for  having  illegally  dis- 
charged some  performers  of  the  Royalty  Theatre, 
who  were  committed  by  another  magistrate  in 
that  district  for  performing  in  plays  and  inter- 
ludes, contrary  to  an  express  Act  of  Parlia- 
ment." 3  Not  until  May  (22d)  of  the  following 

^  Charles  Bannister,  Sr.,  refused  to  abandon  Palmer  when 
the  rest  of  the  company  left  him  at  the  time  when  the  three 
managers  threatened  them  first,  i.  e.  before  June  20,  1787. 

2  Town  and  Country  Magazine,  August,  1787. 

^  Gentleman'' s  Magazine,  March,  1788. 


THE  ROYALTY  THEATRE  115 

year  were  these  offending  justices  brought  up 
for  judgment,  when  Justice  Ashurst  pronounced 
the  sentence  of  the  court  upon  them,  which  was, 
that  each  of  the  defendants  should  pay  a  fine  of 
£100  and  be  imprisoned  until  it  was  paid.^ 

Meantime,  Palmer  continued  his  operations 
at  the  Royalty.  When  opportunity  afforded,  he 
advertised  his  complaint  against  the  relentless- 
ness  of  the  patentees.  In  an  Occasional  Address, 
delivered  at  the  Royalty  in  the  autumn  of  1787, 
occur  the  following  lines  :  ^  — 

"  Behold  the  Comic  Muse,  a  dire  event  ; 
Lost  to  the  Stage  —  by  Act  of  Parliament  — 
Then  wonder  not  good  folks,  or  think  it  strange, 
That  I,  long  tongue-tied,  hazard  now  a  change. 
For  who  could  this  same  dumb-show  hear,  and  feel 
The  flatt'ring  transports  which  such  scenes  reveal." 

And    again,  the  following   month    (December, 

1787),— 

"  But  not  for  me  th'  immortal  bard  to  quote  : 
Three  modern  managers  claim  all  he  wrote, 
Else  Henry's  wars  and  Agincourt  we'd  show 
And  bid  with  kindred  warmth  your  bosoms  glow."  ^ 

Palmer's  appeals  to  the  popular  mind  had  their 
effect,  and  aroused  much  sympathy  in  his  cause. 
Measured  by  the  rules  of  abstract  justice,  there 

^  Gentleman's  Magazine,  vol.  lix,  pt.  i,  p.  463. 

^  European  Magazine,  November,  1787. 
3  Ibid.,  December,  1787- 


116  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

can  be  little  doubt  that  the  course  pursued 
against  him  by  the  inexorable  patentees  was 
mean  and  unfair,  and  this  is  especially  true  of 
the  unrelenting  spite  which  characterized  the  at- 
tacks on  Palmer  after  the  latter  had  been  forced 
to  abandon  the  idea  of  a  regular  theatre.  The 
real  injustice  and  absurdity  of  the  prosecution 
of  the  Royalty  performers  did  not  escape  cen- 
sure. "  Does  it  not  imply  some  little  inconsist- 
ency in  a  well-regulated  State,  for  one  subject  to 
be  punished  as  a  rogue  and  vagabond  for  doing 
that  in  publick,  which  another,  perhaps  the  first 
peer  in  the  realm,  is  proud  to  do  with  applause 
within  the  walls  of  his  own  house !  "  ^  On  the 
other  hand  it  is  quite  as  certain  that,  by  his 
own  questionable  conduct.  Palmer  lost  much 
compassion,  which  otherwise  might  have  been 
his  due,  and  injured  the  cause  for  which  the 
Royalty  movement  stands.  The  circumstance  of 
his  reeno^aofement  with  Colman  for  the  summer 
of  1787  has  already  been  mentioned.  His  treat- 
ment of  the  Drury  Lane  management  is  still 
more  blameworthy.  Palmer  was  engaged  to  act 
at  that  theatre  for  the  season  of  1787-88,  which 
was  to  have  opened  on  September  15  with  The 
School  for  Scandal.    Palmer  gave  no  warning 

^  Gentleman's  Magazine,  March,  1788.  The  allusion,  "  first 
peer,"  etc.,  is  to  private  theatricals,  which  were  much  in  vogue 
at  this  time. 


THE  ROYALTY   THEATRE  117 

that  he  was  not  to  be  depended  on,  until  the  day 
immediately  preceding  the  one  advertised  for  the 
opening,  and  then  precipitately  sent  in  his  resig- 
nation from  the  company.  Unprovided  with  a 
Joseph  Surface,  the  managers  were  under  the 
necessity  of  withdrawing  their  bill,  until  they 
could  supply  the  deficiency.  This  called  for  an 
explanation  from  Palmer  to  the  public.  In  a 
letter  published  in  the  prints  of  the  day,  he  ex- 
cused himself  by  saying  that  he  had  been  "  illib- 
erally treated  by  the  Managers  of  the  Winter 
Theatres,"  that  he  had  been  "  insulted  individ- 
ually," that  his  brethren  had  been  stigmatized 
in  general,  and  that  for  these  reasons  he  had 
convened  his  subscribers  and  "had  submitted 
implicitly  to  their  opinion  and  advice ;  they 
honourably  concurred  with  him  in  sentiment, 
that  he  had  been  extremely  abused,  and  ac- 
corded with  his  proposal  of  quitting  Drury  Lane 
Theatre."  For  the  delay  in  sending  in  his  resig- 
nation, Palmer  put  up  the  unintelligible  excuse, 
"the  hurry  in  which  I  have  been  kept  for  some 
days  past,  by  the  respect  I  owe  to  the  public." 
In  his  indignation,  he  pointed  to  the  appellations 
of  "  Vagrant,  Rogue,  and  Vagabond  "  which  had 
been  applied  to  him  "  for  some  months  past ; " 
and  then  broke  out  into  the  exclamation,  "Do 
the  Managers  of  Drury  Lane  imagine  that  I 
can,  with  any  propriety,  appear  on  their  boards  ?" 


118  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

But  Palmer  was  always  acting,  both  on  and 
off  the  stage,  and  so  well  did  "  Plausible  Jack  *' 
succeed  in  his  profession  that  the  public  was 
more  than  once  fooled.  To  protect  himself  from 
the  censure  which  was  sure  to  follow  his  repre- 
hensible conduct  in  waiting  until  the  last  day 
before  the  opening  of  Drury  Lane  before  notify- 
ing the  management  of  his  withdrawal  from  the 
bills,  in  a  blustering  spirit  of  magnanimity,  he 
offered  to  appear  in  his  part  as  advertised,  know- 
ing full  well  that  the  proposal  would  be  rejected. 
Palmer,  by  contemptible  means,  thus  scored  one 
point  in  revenge.^ 

Undaunted  by  his  failure  to  open  the  Royalty 
for  the  regular  drama,  or  by  the  incessant  at- 
tacks of  the  patentees  on  the  success  of  his  pan- 
tomime shows,  Palmer  petitioned  Parliament  at 
its  next  sitting  for  leave  to  bring  in  a  bill  to  en- 
able His  Majesty  to  license  the  Royalty  Theatre. 
This  petition  was  accompanied  by  another,  signed 
by  five  thousand  inhabitants  of  Middlesex,  in  fa- 
vor of  Palmer's  theatre.  But  the  peculiar  course 
adopted  by  Palmer  in  conducting  his  scheme  from 
the  beginning  began  now  to  tell  against  him. 
The  very  member  (Mr.  M.  A.  Taylor)  who  pre- 

1  For  the  correspondence  connected  with  this  incident,  see 
European  Magazine  for  September,  1787.  The  Town  and  Coun- 
try Magazine  for  October,  1787,  severely  reprimands  Palmer 
for  his  conduct  in  this  affair. 


THE  ROYALTY  THEATRE  119 

sented  the  petition  apologized  to  the  House  for  so 
doing,  while  the  opposition  to  the  motion  showed 
the  hostility  which  Palmer  had  aroused  in  ig- 
noring the  Licensing  Act.  Mr.  Anstruther,  in 
speaking  against  the  petition,  called  attention  to 
the  fact  that  Palmer,  "  after  having  for  twelve 
months  trampled  upon  the  law  of  the  country,  ap- 
plied with  a  very  bad  grace  to  Parliament  for  an 
Act  to  license  his  theatre.  Now  that  the  arm  of 
the  law  had  reached  him,  he  applied  for  a  law 
to  sanction  his  proceedings ;  but,  prior  to  this, 
he  had  set  the  law  at  defiance.  The  pretence 
that  he  thought  the  license  of  the  Constable  of 
the  Tower  would  enable  him  legally  to  give  dra- 
matic entertainments,  was  barely  a  pretence  ;  for 
every  man  who  could  read  might  learn,  that  the 
King  himself,  much  less  the  Constable  of  the 
Tower,  could  not  exercise  powers  which  were  re- 
strained by  a  positive  Act  of  Parliament."^  The 
motion  was,  of  course,  lost  (February  8,  1788), 
and  thus  ended  Palmer's  attempt  to  establish  the 
Royalty  Theatre.  It  would,  naturally,  be  sup- 
posed that  the  contest  had  left  him  the  inveter- 
ate enemy  of  the  three  managers,  but  to  our 
great  surprise  we  read  in  the  "  London  Chron- 
icle "  for  June  11,  1788,  that  he  was  once 
more  at  the  Little  Theatre  in  the  Haymarket, 
where  he  "  was  welcomed  back  to  that  stage  on 

^  Gentleman's  Magazine  for  May,  1788 ;  Pari.  Beg.,  xxiii,  159. 


120  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

which  he  has  ever  exhibited  his  talents  to  the 
best  advantage,  with  most  gratifying  tokens  of 
favour  and  affection."  The  hatchet  was  buried 
and  the  pipe  of  peace  smoked  with  Drury  Lane 
also,  and  Pahner  renewed  his  engagement  at 
the  patent  house,  where  he  was  warmly  congrat- 
ulated.^ 

The  legal  aspects  arising  out  of  the  episode  of 
the  attempted  founding  of  the  Royalty  Theatre 
have  been  brought  out  in  the  course  of  the 
narrative  and  need  not  be  repeated  here.  That 
the  patentees  aimed  to  stretch  the  Licensing  Act 
to  its  utmost  limit  in  aiding  their  own  designs 
was  manifest  in  every  point  in  their  opposi- 
tion. It  was  clear  that  they  interpreted  the  Act 
of  1737  as  meaning  to  legalize  their  monopoly, 
and  that  they  intended  to  use  the  advantage 
for  all  it  could  be  made  to  produce.  It  was 
barely  possible,  that,  in  their  zeal,  they  went 
even  too  far  for  the  safety  of  their  own  posi- 
tion. 

The  contest  brought  out,  also,  the  necessity  of 
some  modification  of  the  Act  of  1737.  This  fact 
appeared  in  a  startling  form  when,  in  the  House 
of  Commons,  Anstruther  pointed  out  that  not 
even  the  king  coidd  license  a  theatre  in  opposi- 

^  Oulton,  in  his  History  of  the  Theatres  of  London,  i,  167-196, 
has  collected  a  great  deal  of  valuable  contemporaneous  mate- 
rial on  the  Royalty  for  1787. 


THE   ROYALTY   THEATRE  121 

tion  to  the  Act  of  Parliament.  That  act  in- 
cluded Westminster  only/  and,  evidently,  the 
time  was  near  at  hand  when  this  limitation 
would  prove  too  narrow. 

Finally,  and  of  the  greatest  importance,  public 
attention,  in  a  wide  sense,  for  the  first  time 
since  the  passage  of  the  Licensing  Act,  was 
called  to  the  glaring  absurdities  and  gross  in- 
justices attaching  to  that  act  when  operated  for 
purely  private  ends,  in  defiance  of  the  public 
desire.  It  clearly  appeared  that  the  predictions 
of  Aaron  Hill,  over  half  a  century  before,  had 
come  to  pass,  namely,  that  a  monopoly  of  the 
legitimate  drama  must  ultimately  lead  to  a 
lowering  in  tone  of  theatrical  performances. 
This  was  the  essential  complaint  of  Palmer 
against  the  opposition  of,  the  patentees,  and  the 
public  had  had  the  first  lesson  in  its  truthful- 
ness ;  time  alone  would  prove  how  well  it  had 
been  learned. 

It  may  not  be  out  of  place  here  to  mention 
the  main  facts  connected  with  the  stormy  history 
of  the  Royalty  Theatre  from  1787  to  its  final 
destruction  in  1826.  It  opened  and  closed  under 
numerous  managers,  and,  together  with  the 
usiilil    cheap    order   of    performances   and   the 

^  On  petition  a  number  of  cities  and  towns  had  obtained,  at 
various  times,  acts  of  Parliament  relieving  them,  in  part, 
from  the  restrictions  of  the  Licensing  Act. 


122  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

frequent  persecutions  by  the  patentees,  it  eked 
out  but  a  half-existence,  at  best.  After  Palmer 
abandoned  his  scheme,  a  bookseller,  named 
Steele,  came  into  possession  of  the  Royalty,  but 
he  soon  surrendered  the  management  to  Wewit- 
zer,  the  actor.  Then,  for  a  time,  Macready, 
father  of  William  Charles,  gave  some  dignity  to 
the  place.  In  1803,  Mrs.  Steele  and  Astley,  the 
amphitheatre  king,  applied  to  the  Wellclose 
magistrates  for,  and  were  granted,  a  license  to 
perform  interludes  at  the  Royalty.  By  1807,  it 
had  again  changed  hands,  and,  in  1813,  another 
Palmer  tried  his  fortune  with  it.  It  was  about 
this  time  that  the  name  of  the  theatre  was  changed 
to  "  The  East  London,"  though  the  old  name,  also, 
stuck  to  it.  Rae,  of  the  Drury  Lane  company, 
attempted  to  raise  the  theatre  into  respectability 
in  1819,  but  fate  seemed  to  have  marked  it 
from  the  beginning.  In  1826,  the  Royalty  was 
burned  to  the  ground.  It  was  immediately  re- 
built as  "  The  Royal  Brunswick,"  and  opened 
on  February  25,  1828.  Three  days  later,  during 
a  rehearsal  of  Guy  Mannering,  the  theatre 
collapsed,  killing  fifteen  and  injuring  a  score 
more. 

On  the  site  of  the  Royalty  and  Royal  Bruns- 
wick now  (1905)  stands  the  Sailors'  Home,  and 
the  only  vestiges  remaining  to  suggest  that  here 
was  once  a  place  of  theatrical  amusements,  are 


THE  ROYALTY  THEATRE  123 

the   curb-stone    posts   bearing   the   inscription, 
"R.  B.  T."^ 

1  For  contemporaneous  accounts  of  the  Royalty,  1787-1828, 
the  student  is  referred  to  the  following:  General  Magazine, 
September,  1788,  June,  1789,  April,  1790  ;  Town  and  Country 
Magazine,  November,  1789  ;  Monthly  Visitor,  November,  1797, 
February  and  April,  1798,  March,  1799 ;  Morning  Chronicle, 
October  7,  1802,  October  25,  1807  ;  London  Chronicle,  October 
6, 1803,  October  5,  1819 ;  Reasoner,  July,  1813  ;  Literary  Chron- 
icle and  Weekly  Review,  December  18,  1819 ;  New  Monthly 
Magazine,  April,  1827  ;  Britannic  Magazine,  x,  p.  70. 


CHAPTER  VI 

A  SUMMARY  OF  THE  CONFLICTING  THEATRICAL  LEGIS- 
LATION   IN     ENGLAND     AT     THE     CLOSE     OF     THE 
EIGHTEENTH     CENTURY 

TO  appreciate  the  delusion  under  which  Palmer 
and  his  advisers  attempted  to  establish  a 
theatre  in  London  for  the  regular  drama,  it  is 
necessary  to  glance  at  the  various  parliamentary 
acts  in  force  during  the  last  half  of  the  eigh- 
teenth century.  The  old  Vagrant  Act  of  Queen 
Anne,  which  descended  from  the  Rogue,  Vaga- 
bond, and  Sturdy  Beggar  Act  of  39  Elizabeth, 
had  continued  through  the  century  unrepealed, 
and  had  been  reinforced  by  the  Licensing  Act 
of  1737.  These  acts  were  primarily  for  the  same 
purpose,  to  protect  morality  and  defend  the 
peace;  though  the  Licensing  Act  aimed,  also, 
to  secure  government  from  the  scurrilous  abuse 
of  satiric  invective.  We  have  seen  how  both 
these  laws  became,  in  time,  interpreted  in  the 
narrow  sense  of  forming  the  legal  safeguard  to 
the  patent  monopoly.  Had  no  other  laws  than 
these  existed,  regulating  the  theatre,  Palmer's 
stupidity  in  violating  them  had  been  wholly  in- 
excusable, for  the  practice  of  half  a  century  had 


CONFLICTING  LEGISLATION  125 

clearly  established  the  fact  that  the  patentees 
had  succeeded  in  turning  the  Licensing  Act 
strictly  to  their  own  account. 

But  there  was  another  act  of  Parliament, 
passed  in  the  25  George  II  (fifteen  years  after 
the  Licensing  Act),  which  is  responsible  for 
misleading  Palmer.  This  law  was  enacted  to  meet 
the  police  demands  of  certain  places  of  amuse- 
ment, and  Sadler's  Wells  in  particular.  The 
"  Wells,"  as  a  resort,  may  be  traced  back  into 
the  period  of  the  Commonwealth.  By  1727,  the 
place  had  regular  performances  of  dancing,  sing- 
ing, rope-walking,  and  so  forth.  The  extrava- 
gances of  the  next  few  years  in  theatricals,  treated 
in  an  earlier  chapter,  extended  to  Sadler's  Wells, 
shortly  reducing  it  to  one  of  the  most  disreputa- 
ble dens  of  thieves,  robbers,  and  licentiousness 
in,  or  about,  London.  In  1744,  information  was 
laid  before  the  grand  jury  against  the  proprie- 
tors for  keeping  a  disorderly  aiid  disreputable 
house.  To  put  a  stop  to  these  evils  at  the  Wells, 
and  kindred  places,  in  1752  (25  George  II), 
Parliament  passed  "  An  Act  for  the  better  pre- 
venting Thefts  and  Robberies,  and  for  regulating 
Places  of  public  Entertainment,  and  punishing 
Persons  keeping  disorderly  Houses."  ^ 

After  reciting  the  deplorable,  state  of  morals, 
fostered  by  places  of  public  entertainment,  the 
^  Statutes  at  Large,  vii,  p.  43. 


126  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

act  provides  for  the  licensing  of  such  places  at 
the  discretion  of  the  magistrates  in  their  quarter 
sessions  of  the  peace.  The  act  was  an  experiment 
to  be  tried  for  three  years,  and  was  to  extend  to 
London  and  Westminster  (and  within  twenty 
miles  thereof).  Any  person  found  keeping  a 
"  house,  room,  or  garden  "  for  public  entertain- 
ment, without  such  license  from  the  Justices  of 
the  Peace,  was  to  suffer  the  penalty  of  one  hun- 
dred pounds  fine,  and  "  be  otherwise  punishable 
as  the  law  directs  in  cases  of  disorderly  houses." 
No  charge  was  to  be  made  for  issuing  licenses 
for  the  purposes  aforesaid.  Drury  Lane,  Covent 
Garden,  and  the  King's  Theatre  in  the  Haymar- 
ket  were  exempt  from  the  act. 

At  the  expiration  of  this  law  governing  the 
licensing  of  public  places  of  entertainments,  its 
operation  had  proved  so  beneficial  that  it  was 
renewed  and  made  perpetual.^  It  was  under  this 
act  that  Palmer  thought  to  open  the  Royalty 
Theatre.  As  it  made  no  pretense  of  including 
the  regular  drama  within  its  provisions,  it  is 
plain  why  the  performance  of  Shakespeare's 
plays  "for  hire,  gain,  or  reward"  was  adjudged 
illegal,  and  the  theatre  closed.  When  it  opened 
again  on  the  3d  of  July  (1787),  and  for  a  good 
portion  of  the  remainder  of  its  history,  it  was  by 
authority  of  the  25  George  II,  as  outlined  above. 
1  28  George  U,  cap.  19  (1755). 


CONFLICTING  LEGISLATION  127 

The  attempt  of  Palmer  to  establish  a  theatre 
in  London  in  spite  of  the  patent  houses  and  their 
"legal  monopoly"  was,  to  all  appearances,  a  mis- 
erable failure.  But  the  public  interest  which  it 
elicited  in  the  question  of  exclusive  privileges  in 
matters  relating  to  the  general  good  was  an  in- 
calculable victory  on  the  side  of  an  unrestricted 
stage.  The  immediate  result  of  the  conflict  was 
a  complete  demonstration  of  the  security  of  the 
patentees  within  their  stronghold ;  but,  at  the 
same  time,  it  was  also  made  clear  that  the  pas- 
sive acquiescence  of  the  preceding  half  century 
had  changed  to  an  active  and  determined  oppo- 
sition to  the  theatrical  monopoly. 

The  effort  made  in  the  Royalty  venture  was 
the  signal  for  other  places  of  amusement  to  sue 
for  an  extension  of  privileges.  On  the  10th  of 
March,  1788,  a  bill  was  presented  to  the  House 
of  Commons,  and  passed  its  first  reading,  to  en- 
able His  Majesty  to  grant  letters  patent  for  the 
licensing  of  certain  entertainments  at  Sadler's 
Wells.  At  this  time,  the  patentees  were  fortu- 
nate in  having  a  representative  in  Parliament 
who  was  both  interested  in  the  welfare  of  the 
theatrical  monopoly,  and  also  capable  of  defend- 
ing it.  Richard  Brinsley  Sheridan  had  beeu 
associated  with  the  management  of  Drury  Lane 
since  the  exit  of  Gar  rick,  and  a  worthy  succes- 
sor he  was  of  the  great  actor's  jealous  watchful- 


128  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

ness  over  the  patent  rights  of  the  theatre.  When 
the  Sadler's  Wells  bill  was  introduced,  Sheridan 
(who  had  represented  Strafford  since  1780) 
placed  himself  on  record  as  regards  his  attitude 
towards  all  attempted  encroachments  on  the 
"  legal  monopoly."  He  was  the  first  on  the  floor 
after  the  reading  of  the  bill,  and  his  speech  on 
this  occasion  characterizes  the  policy  of  the  pat- 
entees for  the  next  quarter  of  a  century. 

At  the  outset  of  his  remarks,  Sheridan  stated 
that  he  had  consented  to  the  first  reading  of  the 
bill  in  order  that  the  house  might  fully  appreci- 
ate what  was  demanded  of  them.  To  protect  the 
proprietors  (Arnold  and  Wroughton)  of  Sadler's 
Wells  from  loss  to  their  investment,  no  one,  said 
Sheridan,  would  go  farther  than  himself.  And 
here  he  took  occasion  to  draw  a  contrast  between 
the  method  adopted  by  the  proprietors  of  Sad- 
ler's Wells  in  seeking  a  legal  existence,  and  that 
of  Palmer  in  attempting  to  establish  the  Royalty 
Theatre.  "  That  was  a  scheme  set  up  upon  false 
pretences,  and  supported  by  a  conspiracy  of  Jus- 
tices of  the  Peace,  to  defeat  the  law.  .  .  .  The 
present  application  came  forward  in  a  decent 
manner."  But  this  was  only  a  bit  of  jDlaster  ap- 
plied in  advance  of  the  lashing  that  was  to  fol- 
low. Further  signs  of  magnanimity,  in  dealing 
with  Sadler's  Wells,  were  manifested  by  the 
Drury  Lane  manager.    He  desired  the  pending 


CONFLICTING  LEGISLATION  129 

application  to  be  liberally  treated,  that  the  "  legal 
monopolists  might  not  stand  on  their  rights  too 
strictly."  The  wily  orator  had  ever  been,  and  he 
ti'usted  "  he  ever  should  be  an  enemy  to  anything 
like  oppression  in  any  matter  great  or  small." 
As  to  the  matter  under  consideration,  he  con- 
fessed that  the  apprehension  of  others  interested 
in  certain  rights,  supposed  to  be  infringed  by  the 
Sadler's  Wells  bill,  went  farther  than  his  own. 
But,  notwithstanding  Sheridan's  apparent  friend- 
liness toward  the  petitioners  from  Sadler's  Wells, 
he  saw  certain  cogent  reasons  why  the  bill  should 
be  rejected.  The  cause,  stated  in  the  application, 
he  alleged,  was  at  variance  with  the  truth.  It  was 
there  asserted  that  the  proprietors  of  the  winter 
houses  "  had  lately  instituted  suits  at  law  not 
only  against  the  last  newly  erected  theatre 
[meaning  the  Royalty],  but  intended  to  com- 
mence suits  and  prosecutions  against  all  others 
indiscriminately."  Sheridan  assured  the  House 
that  this  charge  was  wholly  unfounded.  Another 
misleading  statement  in  the  application  was  dis- 
covered by  the  patentee.  Seemingly,  the  propri- 
etors of  Sadler's  Wells  asked  only  to  be  legally 
empowered  to  continue  their  performances  as 
usual.  What  they  really  asked  for,  as  inter- 
preted by  Sheridan,  was  a  monopoly.  Now,  ad- 
mitted Sheridan,  if  Parliament  desired  to  grant 
a  monopoly  for  a  certain  class  of  performances, 


130  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

it  could  do  so,  of  course  ;  but  he  strongly  ob- 
jected to  giving  parliamentary  sanction  to  a  con- 
cern which,  according  to  its  own  testimony,  had 
been  guilty  of  violating  the  privileges  of  its  li- 
cense. What  the  Sadler's  Wells  proprietors 
were  actually  seeking,  asserted  Sheridan,  was  a 
legal  safeguard  to  protect  them  in  their  illegal 
practices.  The  allusion  is,  of  course,  to  the  en- 
croachment at  the  Wells  on  the  regular  drama. 
It  would  be  embarrassing,  thought  the  advocate 
for  the  patent  houses,  to  say  to  other  apphcants 
for  licenses  to  exhibit  performances  similar  to 
those  at  Sadler's  Wells,  that,  inasmuch  as  the 
latter  place  of  amusement  had  been  the  first  to 
transgress  the  law,  it  should  have  a  monopoly  in 
that  line. 

Sheridan  assumed,  without  argument,  that,  in 
case  the  House  saw  fit  to  grant  the  application 
for  a  Sadler's  Wells  bill,  it  would  be  so  altered 
"  that  no  part  of  the  new  powers  would  be  suffered 
to  entrench  on  the  rights  of  the  Winter  theatres, 
either  as  to  season  or  the  species  of  performance." 
He  alluded  to  the  fact  that  the  petition  for  the 
bill  had  been  before  the  House  "  for  nearly  two 
months,"  insinuating  there  had  been  a  special 
purpose  on  the  part  of  the  promoters  for  waiting 
till  near  the  season  for  opening  Sadler's  Wells 
before  bringing  it  up.  On  account,  therefore,  of 
the  nature  of  the  application,  Sheridan  moved  a 


CONFLICTING  LEGISLATION  131 

postponement  of  the  second  reading  until  April 
4.  The  purpose  of  this  motion  was,  of  course,  to 
delay  the  further  consideration  of  the  bill  until 
after  the  time  for  the  usual  opening  of  the  Wells. 

In  answer  to  Sheridan,  his  opponent,  Sir  H. 
Mackworth,  denied  that  a  monopoly  was  aimed 
at  by  the  bill,  or  that  any  attempt  was  made  by 
it  to  infringe  the  rights  of  the  patentees.  Neither 
was  it  needful  to  suppose  that,  by  granting  Sad- 
ler's Wells  a  license  to  continue  harmless  per- 
formances, such  as  they  had  been  used  to  do,  a 
precedent  would  be  thus  established  compelling 
Parliament  to  grant  similar  licenses  to  all  ap- 
plicants, Sheridan,  however,  enlisted  the  influ- 
ence of  Charles  James  Fox,  and  the  second 
reading  of  the  Sadler's  Wells  bill  was  postponed, 
as  moved  by  Sheridan,  by  a  vote  of  48  to  39.^ 

It  was  with  comparative  ease  that  Sheridan 
seemed  to  defeat  the  Sadler's  Wells  bill,  but  the 
matter  was  not  to  drop  here.  Mainwaring,  the 
original  mover  of  the  bill,  immediately  framed 
another  of  a  more  general  and  far-reaching  na- 
ture, looking  towards  an  amendment  and  expla- 
nation of  the  theatrical  laws  then  in  force.  The 
motion  to  bring  in  this  bill,  which  was  known  as 
the  Interlude  Bill,  was  made  on  the  8th  of  April, 
1788,  and,  as  outlined  by  one  of  the  clauses  of 

1  Parliamentary   History  of  England,  vol.  xxviii,  cols.  159- 
163  ;  Gentleman's  Magazine,  August,  1788. 


132  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

the  bill,  it  was  clearly  intended  to  attain  the  same 
end  as  the  Sadler's  Wells  bill.  The  motion  was 
agreed  to  by  tlie  House  without  opjDosition.  A 
week  later,  a  petition  came  up  from  the  Koyalty 
Theatre,  praying  to  have  a  similar  clause  to  that 
of  Sadler's  Wells  inserted  in  the  Interlude  Bill.^ 
The  Speaker  of  the  House  declared  the  Royalty 
petition  out  of  order.  The  Sadler's  Wells  petition 
to  be  annexed  to  the  bill,  he  said,  had  been  pre- 
sented within  the  time  limit  ^  allowed  to  peti- 
tioners for  private  bills ;  the  Royalty  had  come 
in  too  late  to  have  its  merits  examined.  Poor 
Palmer's  petition  was,  thereupon,  referred  to  a 
committee,  but  not  until  a  staunch  supporter  of 
fair  play  and  an  unshackled  stage  had  expressed 
surprise  at  the  prejudice  exhibited  towards 
the  Royalty.  This  advocate  (M.  A.  Taylor,  the 
original  mover  of  the  Royalty  bill)  went  far- 
ther, and  asked  the  reason  why  Drury  Lane  and 
Covent  Garden  should  have  a  monopoly  to  the 
exclusion  of  all  other  places  of  amusement.  He 
insisted  that  a  theatre  in  Whitechapel  could  not 
injure  the  "  great "  houses,  and  that  that  part  of 
town  (the  locality  of  the  Royalty)  ought  to  be 
indulged  as  well  as  the  West  End. 

^  Parliamentary  Begister,  xxiii,  458,  459,  497  ;  Gentleman's 
Magazine,  September,  October,  17SS. 

^  At  this  (5th)  Session,  the  Sth  of  February  was  fixed  as 
the  last  day  for  receiving  petitions  for  private  bills.  Gentleman's 
Magazine,  May,  1788;  London  Chronicle,  February,  1788. 


CONFLICTING  LEGISLATION  133 

Fox  contended  that  there  was  already  a  suffi- 
cient number  of  places  of  amusement,  and  that 
any  increase  of  these  would  destroy  the  perfec- 
tion of  those  already  established.  As  to  the  pro- 
prietors of  Sadler's  Wells,  they  had  long  been 
acting  from  allowed  prescriptive  right,  he  said, 
and  were  more  entitled  to  the  indulgence  prayed 
for  in  the  petition  than  the  proprietors  of  the 
Koyalty  Theatre,  who  had  no  such  grounds  to 
proceed  on  and  no  claim  to  favor. 

The  Royalty  petition  was  infectious.  On  the 
25th  of  April,  a  memorial  from  the  proprietors 
of  the  Royal  Circus  was  presented  to  Parliament, 
praying  for  a  clause  in  its  favor.  But  the  rul- 
ing which  had  been  applied  to  the  Royalty  peti- 
tion was  repeated,  and  the  House  proceeded  to 
the  third  reading.  At  this  juncture,  one  of  the 
members  (Mr.  Hussey)  thought  to  "feel  the  pulse 
of  the  House,"  as  he  expressed  it,  by  offering  a 
rider  to  the  bill  in  the  form  of  a  clause  intended 
to  relax  the  ris^or  of  the  then  existins^  acts  of  Par- 
liament  relative  to  strolling  players.  As  the  law 
stood,  it  was  in  the  power  of  any  malicious  or 
interested  person  to  apprehend  traveling  come- 
dians, and  have  the  vagrant  clause  enforced  upon 
them.  The  amendment  which  was  now  sprung 
upon  the  House,  proposed  to  give  to  the  quarter 
sessions,  and  to  the  quarter  sessions  only,  the 
power  to  grant  licenses  to  any  company  of  come- 


lU    THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

dians  to  act  plays  for  forty  nights,  in  the  course 
of  a  year,  in  any  town  or  city  in  the  realm ;  pro- 
vided, the  said  town  or  city  should  be  specified, 
and  not  to  be  at  a  less  distance  than  thirty  miles 
from  London,  nor  than  fifteen  miles  from  any 
place  in  which  there  should  be  a  patent  theatre. 
The  motion  was,  of  course,  overruled,  as  it 
contained  matter  entirely  new ;  whereupon,  the 
mover  intimated  his  intention  of  forming  it  into 
a  bill.  The  original  motion  having  passed  the 
House  of  Commons,  the  bill  was  sent  to  the 
Lords  for  their  concurrence.  When  on  the  5th 
of  May  (1788),  the  bill  came  up  for  considera- 
tion in  the  upper  house,  a  determined  opposition 
appeared  to  the  clause  making  it  "  lawful  for  the 
proprietors  of  Sadler's  Wells  to  continue  exhib- 
iting performances  of  singing,  dancing,  panto- 
mime, and  music,  and  other  entertainments 
which  have  been  exhibited  there,  etc."  It  did 
not  escape  the  managers  of  the  other  minor 
theatres  ^  that  if  this  clause,  unmodified,  were 
left  in  the  bill,  not  only  would  Sadler's  Wells 
secure  thereby  a  legal  monopoly  of  that  species 
of  amusement  (singing,  dancing,  etc.)  which  had 

^  The  term  "  minor  theatre "  was,  at  first,  intended  to  in- 
clude those  establisliments  not  permitted  to  represent  the  reg- 
ular drama,  i.  e.  all  except  the  two  patent  houses.  The  dis- 
tinction continued  even  after  the  regular  drama  had  crept  into 
the  smaller  theatres. 


CONFLICTING   LEGISLATION  135 

hitherto  been  open  to  all  the  lesser  places  of 
entertainment,  but  also  that  the  indefinite  privi- 
leffe  contained  in  "  other  entertainments  which 
have  been  exhibited  there,"  practically  insured  to 
Sadler's  Wells  the  lawful  presentation  of  other 
forms  of  theatrical  performances  than  those  per- 
mitted by  custom  or  statute  ;  for  it  appears  that 
the  proprietors  of  the  Wells  had,  on  occasion, 
stretched  their  licensed  privileges.  In  the  exami- 
nation of  the  bill  in  the  House  of  Lords,  the 
proprietors  of  Astley's,  the  Royal  Circus,  and 
the  Royalty  were  represented  by  counsel.  For 
Astley,  it  was  claimed  that  the  magistrates 
of  Surrey  had  licensed  his  house  of  amusement 
for  ten  successive  years,  a  fact  which  seemed  to 
indicate  the  respectability  of  the  place,  and  that 
the  proposed  bill  would  operate  to  ruin  the  estab- 
lishment. AVitnesses  from  Sadler's  Wells  were 
here  introduced,  who  deposed  that  that  place  of 
entertainment  had  been  conducted  for  upwards 
of  fifty  years,  and  that  very  large  sums  had  been 
expended  on  it.  But  it  was  not  certain  that  these 
expenditures  had  been  made  since  the  restrictions 
of  the  25  George  II  (1752). 

The  Lords  were  convinced  of  the  partiality  of 
the  bill,  and,  therefore,  considered  an  amend- 
ment to  include  the  Royalty,  the  Royal  Grove 
(Astley's),  and  the  Royal  Circus.  The  proprie- 
tors of  the  patent  theatres  and  the  Ilaymarket 


136  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

arose  in  alarm  at  this  and  forthwith  petitioned 
the  Lords  against  the  proposed  amendment. 
The  Duke  o£  Richmond  shrewdly  observed  that 
counsel  for  the  patentees  had  spoken  strongly 
against  three  of  the  minor  establishments,  but 
had  failed  to  say  one  word  against  Sadler's 
Wells.  Why  the  latter  concern  should  receive 
greater  indulgence  than  the  others  on  the  same 
footing,  the  Duke  was  unable  to  conceive.  It 
was  admitted  that  all  four  of  the  minor  theatres 
had  been  guilty  of  violating  the  statutes  regulat- 
ing those  places,  but  Sadler's  Wells  had  been  a 
law-breaker  for  a  much  longer  jseriod  than  the 
rest.^  That  the  winter  houses  and  the  Hay- 
market  wished  to  monopolize  the  whole  business 
of  dramatic  entertainment  was  no  reason  why 
the  inhabitants  of  one  part  of  the  town,  as  well 
as  those  of  another  part,  should  not  enjoy  the 
amusements  of  a  theatre.  This  allusion  was  to 
the  Royalty  Theatre ;  and  in  answer  to  the 
opposers  of  that  theatre,  who  complained  that 
the  passages  to  the  place  were  thronged  by  per- 
sons of  immoral  character,  it  was  retorted  that 
Drury  Lane  and  Covent  Garden  were  subject 
to  the  same  criticism. 

The  position  taken  by  the  Duke  of  Richmond 

^  This  allusion,  no  doubt,  applies  more  particularly  to  25 
George  II  (regarding  morals)  than  to  any  violation  of  the 
Licensing  Act. 


CONFLICTING  LEGISLATION  137 

fairly  voiced  the  attitude  of  the  Lords.  The  bill, 
as  amended,  passed  the  House  without  a  divi- 
sion, and  was  returned  to  the  Commons.  But 
the  interests  of  the  patentees  were  strongly- 
represented  there,  and,  on  the  25th  of  June 
(1788),  the  amended  bill  was  rejected.  This 
was  the  formal  conclusion  of  the  attempt  of 
Palmer  to  obtain  parliamentary  protection  for 
the  Royalty,  though,  as  related  in  a  former 
chapter,  his  hopes  had  been  virtually  blasted 
some  time  previous  to  the  fate  of  the  Interlude 
Bill.i 

But  the  time  was  at  hand  when  all  parties 
were  agreed  that  the  Licensing  Act  should  be 
amended.  This  was  evident  from  the  discus- 
sions on  the  Interlude  Bill ;  and  had  that  bill 
been  stripped  of  its  special  features,  which 
were  tacked  to  it  in  the  interest  of  private  in- 
dividuals, it  would  have  passed.  Now  that  the 
real  objections  to  the  bill  had  been  pointed  out 
in  both  houses  of  Parliament,  nothing  remained 
but  to  draw  up  a  measure  free  from  those  ob- 
jections. This  was  accordingly  done  in  "  An 
Act  to  enable  Justices  of  the  Peace  to  license 
Tlieatrical  Representations  occasionally  ;  under 

^  For  the  history  of  the  Interlude  Bill,  see  Parliamentary 
Register,  xxiii,  458,  497;  xxiv,  IKi ;  Gentleman^ s  Magazine, 
June,  September,  October,  17S8 ;  London  Chronicle,  May  6, 
June  23,  26,  1788. 


138  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

the  Restrictions  therein  contained,"  which  passed 
both  houses.^  The  preamble  to  this  act  states 
that  its  purpose  was  to  exempt  England,  as  a 
whole,  from  the  narrow  restrictions  of  the  10 
George  II  (Licensing  Act).  The  bill  grew  im- 
mediately out  of  the  Hussey  amendment  to  the 
Interlude  Bill,  and  gave  to  Justices  of  the  Peace 
authority  to  license  (on  petition)  such  theatrical 
performances  as  were  presented  at  the  patent 
theatres  in  Westminster,  at  any  place,  city,  or 
town,  within  the  magistrates'  jurisdiction,  for  a 
period  not  to  exceed  sixty  days  which  should 
fall  within  the  limits  of  the  four  months  to  be 
specified  in  the  license.  It  was  further  provided, 
that  no  place  licensed  under  the  provisions  of 
this  act  should  be  within  twenty  miles  of  Lon- 
don, Westminster,  or  Edinburgh. 

There  were  now  three  distinct  general  laws 
of  Parliament  governing  the  theatres  of  the 
realm,  besides  numerous  special  acts  applying 
only  to  certain  large  cities.  By  the  act  of  28 
George  III,  it  was  intended  to  recognize  the 
main  provisions  of  the  Licensing  Act  relating 
to  the  patent  houses;  to  leave  the  magistrates 
free,  within  a  radius  of  twenty  miles  from  the 
metropolis,  to  license  places  of  public  entertain- 
ment, according  to  the  25  George  II ;  and,  at 
the  same  time,  to  give  to  the  remainder  of  the 

^  Statutes  at  Large,  28  George  III,  cap.  xxx. 


CONFLICTING   LEGISLATION  139 

kingdom,  lying  outside  the  magic  circle,  the  op- 
portunity for  theatrical  amusements  enjoyed  by 
the  inhabitants  of  Westminster.  Thus  legisla- 
tion stood,  respecting  the  theatres,  at  the  close 
of  the  eighteenth  century  :  the  Lord  Chamber- 
lain was  chief  authority  in  Westminster,  the 
home  of  the  patent  theatres ;  magistrates  in  Lon- 
don and  Westminster,  and  within  twenty  miles 
thereof,  might  license  certain  species  of  theatri- 
cal amusements  ;  magistrates  outside  the  twenty 
miles  circle  could  authorize  the  regular  drama 
for  a  limited  period  each  year ;  while  special 
legislation  in  the  case  of  individual  cities  per- 
mitted the  same  privileges  (in  the  particular 
cities  named  in  the  special  acts)  as  those  en- 
joyed by  the  two  patent  houses  in  the  metropo- 
lis. ^ 

No  more  complicated  or  cumbrous  legislation 
regulating  the  theatres  of  England  (or  any- 
where) could  be  imagined.  The  purpose  of  the 
various  laws  was  to  give  to  the  whole  realm  the 
privileges  enjoyed  by  London  ;  but  these  acts 
were  so  palpably  partial  in  their  operation  that 
that  alone  was  sure,  in  time,  to  call  for  a  reor- 
ganization of  the  whole  system.    Furthermore, 

^  Patents  outside  of  London  were  issued  as  follows  :  Man- 
chester. 1775,  1700 ;  Newcastle,  1787  ;  Bath,  1707;  Chester, 
1798,  1819  ;  Bristol,  1799  ;  Kingston,  and  York,  1803  ;  Liver, 
pool,  Birmingham,  and  Margate,  1807  ;  Edinburgh,  1809. 


140  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

there  was  an  overlapping  of  jurisdictions  pro- 
vided by  these  various  acts  of  legislation,  which 
was  calculated  to  cause  trouble  ;  while  the  indefi- 
nite restrictions  relative  to  the  kinds  of  enter- 
tainments that  might  be  exhibited  under  au- 
thority of  the  magistrates'  license  (25  George 
II)  contained  the  germ  which  was  destined  to 
work  the  destruction  of  the  whole  artificial  theat- 
rical organization.  All  these  discrepancies  and 
contradictions  were  the  result  of  the  attempt  to 
keep  inviolable  the  rights  of  the  patent  theatres, 
and  when  the  readjustment  to  a  rational  basis 
should  come,  it  must  necessarily  be  at  the  sac- 
rifice of  the  monopoly. 


CHAPTER  VII 

FROM  THE  REBUILDING  OF  COVEXT  GARDEN"  AND 

DRURY  LANE  TO  THE  BURNING  OF  THE  GREAT 

THEATRES 

THE  period  of  twenty  years  succeeding  tlie 
Royalty  episode  marks  a  transition  in  theat- 
rical affairs  in  London,  hitherto  unexampled  in 
the  number  and  importance  of  events.  One  thing 
was  certain,  the  good  times  consequent  on  the 
undisturbed  quiet  of  exclusive  privileges  were 
past  forever.  The  managers  of  the  "  great " 
houses  felt  the  necessity  of  bracing  their  position 
in  every  imaginable  direction,  and  the  stupen- 
dous efforts  which  they  made  to  prove  their  long- 
established  security  reacted,  in  time,  to  pull  down 
their  enormous  defenses  about,  their  own  heads. 
Sheridan  conceived  the  plan  of  meeting  the 
growing  demands  of  an  increasing  metropolis  by 
demolishing  the  old  Drury  Lane  Theatre,  ^  and 
erecting  in  its  stead  a  much  larger  and  more 
masjnifieent  edifice.    The  execution  of  this  desi"jn 

^  The  following'  statistics  relative  to  Drnry  Lane  Theatre 
may  be  of  interest:  built  1602;  burnt  1672;  rebuilt  1674; 
enlarged  176;^;  pulled  down  1791;  rebuilt,  reopened  1794; 
burnt  1809  ;  rebuilt  1812. 


142  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

was  commenced  in  1789. v  Sheridan  secured  the 
Opera  House  in  the  Haymarket  ^  for  the  patent 
company  while  the  new  Drury  Lane  Theatre  was 
in  course  of  construction.  But  huge  difficulties 
stood  in  the  way  of  the  great  patentee.  The  new 
structure  was  scarcely  well  on  its  way,  when 
suddenly  all  operations  on  it  were  arrested.  The 
subscribers  had  discovered  that  there  was  no 
patent  for  Drury  Lane  Theatre^  and  they  re- 
fused to  pay  their  subscriptions  to  support  a 
concern  of  such  dubious  tenure.  It  has  been 
pointed  out  more  than  once  in  the  course  of  this 
investigation  that,  when  the  patents  were  united 
in  1682,  they  passed  into  the  hands  of  the  suc- 
cessor to  Davenant,  and,  presumably,  were  in- 
herited by  John  Rich  in  1714.  By  the  same 
order  of  conjecture,  both  the  patents  became  the 
property  of  Beard,  son-in-law  to  John  Kich, 
on  the  death  of  the  latter  (1761),  and,  in  the 
transfer  of  1767,  were  given  over  into  the  pos- 
session of  the  new  managers,  Colman,  Harris, 
Powell,  and  Rutherford.  Of  this  quartette,  Col- 
man had  gone  over  to  the  Haymarket  (1777), 

^  This  was  the  house  built  by  Vanbrugh  in  1704.  It  was 
variously  called  The  Opera  House,  the  King's  Theatre,  and 
Her  Majesty's  Theatre.  It  burnt  in  1789,  and  the  Drury  Lane 
company  then  moved  to  the  Pantheon,  in  Oxford  Street,  until 
the  Opera  House  in  the  Haymarket  was  rebuilt  (1791).  The 
Pantheon  was  first  opened  in  1772 ;  converted  into  an  Opera 
House  in  1784 ;  burnt  1792. 


FROM  REBUILDING  TO   BURNING       143 

Powell  was  dead  (1769),  and,  at  the  time  of  the 
rebuilding  of  Drury  Lane  Theatre,  Harris  was 
practically  the  sole  head  in  the  management  of 
Co  vent  Garden. 

The  situation  in  which  Sheridan  found  him- 
self at  this  time  (1792)  was  anything  but  envi- 
able. Everything  depended  on  the  subscribers, 
and  to  maintain  his  hold  upon  their  confidence, 
and  purse-strings,  it  occurred  to  the  ingenious 
Sheridan  to  get  possession  of  the  "dormant  pa- 
tent." Application,  therefore,  was  made  to  Harris 
for  the  old  Killigrew  grant.  The  Covent  Garden 
manager  agreed  to  dispose  of  it  for  ,£15,000,  and 
the  document  was  at  once  deposited  in  the  hands 
of  a  banker  for  t*he  inspection  and  satisfaction 
of  the  Drury  Lane  subscribers.  However,  a  new 
difficulty  now  arose  to  complicate  matters.  The 
transaction  respecting  the  "dormant  patent" 
coming  to  the  knowledge  of  a  Mr.  White,  who, 
by  marrying  the  daughter  of  the  then  late  Mr. 
Powell,  possessed  a  considerable  shai'e  (one 
fourth)  in  Covent  Garden  Theatre,  White  called 
on  Harris  and  expressed  his  dissatisfaction  at 
the  proposed  transfer  of  the  old  patent  to  Drury 
Lane.  Harris  was  inclined  to  pay  little  heed  to 
these  objections,  but  White  demonstrated  his 
sincerity  by  obtaining  from  the  Court  of  Chan- 
cery a  prohibition  of  the  sale  of  the  patent, 
which  was  thereupon  restored  to  Covent  Garden. 


144  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

It  does  not  appear  that  White  had  any  partic- 
ular scruples  against  the  Drury  Lane  manage- 
ment possessing  the  "dormant patent;"  he  simply 
insisted  that,  as  a  shareholder  in  the  Covent 
Garden  Theatre,  he  should  be  consulted  in  the 
matter  under  consideration,  and  he  refused  to 
sign  the  transfer  of  the  patent  to  Sheridan  unless 
he  receive  ^5000.  After  considerable  bickering, 
the  sum  of  £20,000  was  finally  agreed  on.^ 

Closely  connected  with  this  transaction  runs 
another  affecting  our  general  problem,  though 
apparently  quite  different.  Since  the  troublous 
days  in  the  reign  of  Queen  Anne,  the  question  of 
Italian  opera  had  scarcely  been  a  factor  in  the 
theatrical  affairs  of  London.  Among  the  schemes 
and  counter-schemes  of  that  period,  it  will  be  re- 
membered, it  was  generally  understood  that  Ital- 
ian opera  should  be  relegated  exclusively  to  the 
Opera  House  in  the  Haymarket.  This  arrange- 
ment was  undisturbed  for  years,  except  by  the 
periodic  attacks,  in  pamphlets  and  newspapers, 
on  foreign  actors  and  actresses.  But  in  the  theat- 
rical disturbances  of  the  last  fifteen  or  twenty 
years  of  the  eighteenth  century,  the  opera  ques- 

^  The  history  of  this  transaction  appeared  in  the  London 
Chronicle  for  July  30,  and  September  12,  1792.  These  two 
numbers  of  the  London  Chronicle  contain  the  only  mention  I 
have  ever  seen  of  White's  connection  with  the  transfer  of  the 
patent  to  Sheridan.  This  throws  entirely  new  light  on  the 
reason  why  Sheridan  purchased  the  "  dormant  patent." 


FROM  REBUILDING  TO  BURNING       145 

tioii  also  was  involved.  The  history  of  the  opera 
controversy  in  London  is  long  and  interesting, 
but  it  is  my  object,  in  this  connection,  to  touch 
on  those  points  only  which  associate  themselves 
naturally  with  the  main  pursuit.^ 

About  1781,  the  Opera  House  in  the  Haymar- 
ket  (King's  Theatre)  became  the  property  of 
William  Taylor.  Not  long  after  this  (1784),  a 
building  in  Oxford  Street,  constructed  in  1772, 
was  converted  into  an  opera  house,  which  became 
the  property  of  one  O'Reilly  in  1789.  This  was 
the  Pantheon,  and  O'Reilly  at  once  fitted  it  up 
for  a  class  of  entertainments  similar  to  those 
represented  at  the  King's  Theatre  in  the  Hay- 
market,  that  is  to  say,  for  Italian  opera.  On 
the  17th  of  June,  1789,  Taylor's  Opera  House 
caught  fire  during  a  rehearsal,  and  burned.  Tak- 
ing advantage  of  the  circumstance,  O'Reilly,  who 
was  a  politician,  wielded  his  influence  with  the 
Lord  Chamberlain,  and  secured  a  license  for 
Italian  opera  at  the  Pantheon.  A  war  was  thus 
precipitated  between  the  opera  managers.    Tay- 

^  For  some  of  the  material  connected  with  the  opera  quarrels 
in  London,  see  A  Concise  Statement  of  Transactions  and  Cir- 
cumstances respecting  the  King^s  Theatre  in  the  Haymarket.  By 
W.Taylor.  Pamphlet,  pp.  46,  London,  1791.  Also,  The  Opera 
Glass:  exhibiting  all  the  curious  proceedings  of  the  King''s  Thea- 
tre, &c.  By  E.  Waters,  London,  1808.  Seven  Years  of  the 
King^s  Theatre.  By  John  Ebers,  London,  1828.  Outline  for 
a  General  Opera  Arrangement,  London,   1792. 


146  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

lor  was  refused  a  license  on  the  pretext  that  one 
for  the  same  purpose  had  been  granted  to 
O'Reilly ;  and  the  question  to  decide  was,  who 
had  the  monopoly  for  Italian  opera  in  London, 
—  Taylor,  whom  precedent  would  sustain  in  his 
claim,  or  O'Reilly,  who  maintained  his  position 
by  virtue  of  the  Lord  Chamberlain's  license  ? 

On  December  31,  1790,  a  number  of  gentle- 
men, interested  in  the  settlement  of  the  dispute, 
met  at  Carlton  House  in  the  hopes  of  devising 
some  means  of  reconciliation  between  the  bellig- 
erents. A  scheme  of  union  of  the  two  manage- 
ments was  proposed,  the  Opera  House  in  the 
Haymarket  (which  was  then  rebuilding)  alone 
to  be  used  for  operas,  the  Pantheon  to  be  re- 
served for  light  and  select  entertainments  of  mu- 
sic and  dancing.  But  the  parties  were  too  much 
at  variance  to  reach  a  compromise,  and  the  meet- 
ing broke  up  without  having  accomj^lished  any- 
thing.^ Meantime,  the  new  Opera  House  in  the 
Haymarket  was  pushed  to  its  completion,  and, 
as  the  new  Drury  Lane  Theatre  was  barely  com- 
menced, Sheridan  occupied  the  Opera  House 
with  the  patent  company,  where  he  opened  the 
season  September  22,  1791. 

The  dispute  between  Taylor  and  O'Reilly  was 
finally  settled  by  the  latter  getting  inextricably 
involved  during  the  season  of  1791,  and  by  the 

^  London  Chronicle,  4th,  8th,  17th  January,  1791. 


FROM  REBUILDING  TO   BURNING      147 

burning  of  the  Pantheon  the  next  year.  Sheridan 
was  at  this  time  (1792)  negotiating  for  the 
"dormant  patent,"  and  he  now  came  forward  in 
the  opera  controversy,  ostensibly  for  the  pur- 
pose of  definitely  settling  the  point  of  the  Italian 
opera.  The  plan  of  settlement  was  known  as 
an  Outline  for  a  General  Opera  Arrangement^ 
and  is  a  striking  example  of  Sheridan's  finesse. 
In  the  first  place,  the  Drury  Lane  manager  ap- 
pears as  the  chief  representative  of  the  interests 
of  the  King's  Theatre  (Opera  House  in  the 
Haymarket),  and  general  mediator  between  all 
parties.  The  Pantheon  was  represented  in  the 
Outline  by  William  Sheldon,  while  Covent 
Garden  was  not  included  in  the  committee  that 
framed  the  articles  of  settlement.  This  seems 
the  more  strange  inasmuch  as  Harris  was  still 
in  possession  of  both  the  patents  of  the  monop- 
oly. To  secure  for  the  proposed  Arrangement 
the  dignity  and  support  of  high  authority,  the 
approbation  (in  signature)  of  the  Prince  of 
Wales  and  the  Marquis  of  Salisbury,  then  Lord 
Chamberlain,  was  obtained.  The  Duke  of  Bed- 
ford, owner  of  the  ground  on  which  Drury  Lane 
Theatre  once  stood,  also  entered  his  signature. 

Shrewdness  marks  the  entire  thirty-one  arti- 
cles of  the  Outline.  From  a  hasty  examination 
of  these,  it  would  seem  that  the  main  purpose 
throughout  was  to  settle  once  for  all  the  vexed 


148  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

question  of  the  Italian  opera ;  and,  from  the 
attention  given  to  Mr.  Taylor's  interests  in  the 
settlement,  that  gentleman  must  have  been  highly 
gratified  with  the  Arrangement.  A  monopoly  to 
that  species  of  entertainment  was  surrendered  to 
the  Opera  House  in  the  Haymarket,  and  a  clause 
was  inserted  which  contained  a  waiver  of  all 
pretensions  in  that  direction  on  the  part  of  Drury 
Lane  and  Covent  Garden.  To  put  at  rest  the 
danger  of  the  Pantheon  rivalry,  provision  was 
made  for  the  dismantling  of  that  Opera  House 
as  soon  as  the  new  Opera  House  in  the  Haymar- 
ket should  be  ready  for  occupancy.  In  return 
for  such  liberal  concessions,  Taylor  was  to  assume 
the  indebtedness  of  the  defunct  Pantheon, 
amounting  to  about  <£30,000.  The  management 
of  the  Opera  House,  as  proposed  by  the  Outline, 
was  to  be  griven  to  five  noblemen  who  should  be 
named  by  the  Prince  of  Wales,  the  Duke  of  Bed- 
ford, and  the  Marquis  of  Salisbury.  To  put  it 
plainly,  the  Outline  was  distinctly  aimed  at  bring- 
ing the  monopoly  of  the  opera  directly  under 
the  influence  of  the  Drury  Lane  management. 

One  other  strategic  stroke  —  the  main  one 
for  our  purpose  —  should  be  observed  in  con- 
nection with  the  Outline  for  a  General  Opera 
Arrangement.  The  matter  of  the  "  dormant  pat- 
ent "  —  Sheridan's  chief  concern  at  that  time 
—  was  thrust  into  the  opera  settlement,  though 


FROM  REBUILDING  TO  BURNING      149 

having  absolutely  nothing  to  do  with  it.  To  give 
a  semblance  of  propriety  to  the  dragging  into 
the  Outline  of  the  "  doi-mant  patent,"  it  was 
agreed  that  the  Opera  House  in  the  Haymarket 
should  contribute  ,£5000  toward  the  purchase 
of  the  patent  from  Harris,  that  document  then 
to  be  "  annexed  inseparably "  to  Drury  Lane 
Theatre.  This  assessment  on  the  Opera  House 
happened  to  be  the  exact  amount  demanded  by 
White  for  his  one-fourth  interest  in  the  "dor- 
mant patent,"  and  it  was  levied  at  an  opportune 
time  for  the  furtherance  of  Sheridan's  plans.  To 
cover  over  the  real  meaning  of  this  clause  in 
the  Outline,  another  immediately  follows,  con- 
firming and  establishing  the  Opera  House  in  the 
monopoly  of  Italian  opera ;  and  this,  in  turn, 
is  succeeded  by  the  provision  to  secure  the  man- 
agement of  the  Opera  House  to  the  Prince  of 
Wales,  the  Duke  of  Bedford,  and  the  Marquis 
of  Salisbury.  These  three  clauses  (6th,  7th,  and 
8th)  of  the  Outline  form  a  curious  psycholog- 
ical study,  and  together  seem  clearly  to  explain 
Sheridan's  motives. 

The  question  of  the  "  dormant  patent  "  being 
thus  satisfactorily  settled,  as  Sheridan  thought, 
work  on  the  new  Drury  Lane  Theatre  progressed 
without  further  serious  interference.^     The  im- 

^  It  is  significant  that  the  uew  theatre  was  not  opened  under 
the  "  dormant  patent,"  but  under  a  running'  license  (21  years), 


150  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

mense  size  of  the  new  theatre  is  worthy  of  men- 
tion, as  that  was  soon  to  become  a  factor  in  the 
struggle  for  a  free  stage.  The  building  was  320 
feet  in  length,  155  in  width,  and  had  a  roof 
width  of  118  feet.  Covent  Garden  had  antic- 
ipated Drury  Lane  in  the  matter  of  increased 
size,  as  it  had  been  remodeled  and  enlarged  only 
a  short  time  before  (1791).  The  influence  of 
these  changes  in  the  size  of  the  buildings  on  the 
theatrical  problem  was  enormous  and  of  constant 
recurrence.  The  subject  will  be  treated  more 
fully  in  another  connection. 

While  the  details  of  these  larger  and  novel 
features  of  the  patent  theatres  were  in  progress, 
the  struggle  for  existence,  on  the  one  hand,  and  the 
war  of  extermination,  on  the  other,  between  the 
Little  Theatre  in  the  Hay  market  and  the  winter 
theatres,  had  been  resumed.  In  1792  (15th  of 
June),  an  occasional  Prelude  entitled  Tioo  Sides 
of  the  Gutter  ^  was  presented  at  the  Haymarket 
and  contained  a  complaint  of  the  unfair  treat- 
ment by  the  patentees.  It  was  intended,  also,  to 
satirize  the  size  and  gorgeous  magnificence  of 

recently  issued.  It  turned  out  later  that  Sheridan  did  not  se- 
cure the  patent  in  1792,  and  the  whole  question  reappeared  in 
a  later  controversy,  to  be  taken  up  in  the  next  chapter. 

^  This  was  the  sub-title,  the  chief  title  being  Poor  Old  Hay- 
market  ;  written  by  the  younger  Colman,  who,  since  1790,  had 
been  manager  of  the  Haymarket,  the  elder  Colman  being  inca- 
pacitated by  hemiplegia  (of  which  he  died  in  1794). 


FROM   REBUILDING  TO   BURNING      151 

the  new  patent  theatres.*  It  was  during  this 
period  that  the  Drury  Lane  Company,  from  time 
to  time,  occupied  the  theatre  in  the  Haymarket. 
During  the  winter  season  of  1793-94  such  was 
the  case.  The  new  theatre  in  Drury  Lane 
was  completed  in  March,  1794,  and  on  the  12th 
of  the  month  received  the  patent  company.  A 
play  had  been  advertised  the  same  evening  at 
the  Haymarket,  but,  remarks  Oulton,^  as  "  two 
theatres  could  not  keep  open  under  one  patent, 
the  Little  Theatre  closed  in  a  very  abrupt  man- 
ner." No  better  evidence  of  the  completeness 
of  the  monopoly  could  be  conceived  than  this. 
The  futility  of  the  effort  to  compete  with  the 
winter  theatres  was  more  and  more  apparent  to 
Colman,  and,  for  a  number  of  years,  with  occa- 
sional brief  intervals  of  exception,  he  practically 
gave  up  the  fight,  and  conformed  his  summer 
season,  not  to  the  letter  of  his  license,  but  to  the 
will  of  the  patentees.  At  no  time,  be  it  remem- 
bered, during  this  rivalry,  was  the  right  of  the 
patent  houses  to  encroach  on  the  summer  season 
questioned ;  for  it  was  freely  acknowledged  that 
a  patent  contained  authority  above  a  license. 
But  the  tyranny  of  exercising  a  legal  power 
for  the  sole  purpose  of  crushing  an  inferior  was 

^  European  Magazine,  June,  1792.  See  also  London  Chronicle 
for  June  15,  1790. 
2  History  of  the  Theatres  of  London,  ii,  135. 


152  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

complained  of  bitterly,  and,  by  degrees,  the 
public  sympathy  was  aroused  on  the  side  of 
the  weaker  party. 

A  climax  was  reached  in  1802,  when  the  win- 
ter theatres  extended  their  season  so  far  into  the 
summer  that  the  Haymarket  was  unable  to  open 
until  the  2Gth  of  June.  This  determined  Col- 
man  to  put  forward  his  best  efforts  to  ignore  the 
patent  theatres  altogether,  and  to  open  his  thea- 
tre, for  the  future,  on  time.  A  short  time  before 
the  close  of  the  summer  season  of  1802,  he  had 
a  notice  posted  in  the  green-room  at  the  Hay- 
market,  informing  the  actors  that  none  of  them 
need  consider  themselves  as  subject  to  engage- 
ment for  the  ensuing  season,  unless  they  could  be 
in  readiness  to  act  for  the  period  authorized  by 
the  license,  that  is,  from  the  15th  of  May  to  the 
15th  of  September.  And  the  day  before  the 
close  of  the  season  the  play-bills  contained  the 
following  announcement  to  the  public  : 

"  Circumstances  have  arisen  for  several  years 
past,  which  have  curtailed  the  term  allotted  to 
this  theatre,  for  the  representation  of  dramatic 
performances,  of  more  than  one  fourth. 

"  As  the  justly  due  and  customary  thcmks,  at 
the  conclusion  of  the  'present  season,  will  be  fol- 
lowed by  reasons  why  this  theatre  will,  in  future, 
decidedly  exercise' its  rights,  during  the  fit II  pe- 
riod which  has  long  been  graciously  granted  by 


FROM  REBUILDING  TO   BURNING      153 

His  Majesty,  it  is  humbly  hoped  that  the  audi- 
ence will  show  indulgence  to  the  length  of  the 
address^  which  will,  on  this  occasion,  be  sub- 
mitted to  their  candour." 

This  advertisement  had  the  desired  effect  of 
filling  the  theatre  the  next  night  (September  15) 
to  its  utmost  capacity.  At  the  close  of  the  enter- 
tainment, Fawcett,  Colman's  acting  manager, 
came  to  the  front  of  the  stage,  and,  after  deliv- 
ering the  annual  thanksgiving,  read  the  promised 
address  from  the  proprietor.  As  this  contains 
an  admirable  summary  of  the  relations  existing 
between  the  Little  Theatre  and  the  patent 
houses,  it  should  be  quoted  in  full.  The  Address 
runs  thus : 

"  When  a  Royal  Patent  was  about  to  be 
granted  to  the  late  Mr.  Foote,  it  was  inquired, 
with  that  justice  which  characterizes  the  English 
throne,  what  annual  extent  of  term  might  be  al- 
lowed him,  without  injury  to  theatrical  patents 
then  existing  in  this  metropolis.  The  proprie- 
tors of  the  winter  theatres  were  interrogated  on 
this  point,  and,  in  consequence  of  their  docu- 
ments, a  patent  was  granted  to  Foote  for  his  life, 
to  open  a  theatre  annually,  from  the  15th  of 
May  to  the  15th  of  September,  inclusive. 

"  Winter  houses  never  closed  precisely  on  the 
commencement  of  his  term ;  but  Foote  was 
unique^  and  depended  chiefly  on  his  own  writing, 


154  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

and  his  own  acting.  A  licence  was  given  to  the 
Elder  Colman,  for  the  same  annual  term^  on 
Foote's  death  ;  but,  aware  that  he  could  not, 
like  his  singularly  gifted  jjredecessor,  depend  on 
his  own  individual  powers,  he  engaged  a  regular 
company  of  comedians,  chiefly  selected  from  the 
winter  theatres,  for  whose  assistance  he  was 
obliged  to  wait  till  those  theatres  closed.  He 
ventured  in  every  shape,  very  deeply  on  a  lim- 
ited privilege,  which  this  mode  of  speculation 
rendered  still  77iore  limited.  The  Younger  Col- 
man, our  present  proprietor,  succeeded  his  father 
in  this  licence,  but  bought  the  property  at  the 
expense  of  several  thousand  pounds,  and  thus 
came  into  a  theatre,  where  the  custom  of  depend- 
ing on  the  movements  of  the  winter  houses  has 
now  curtailed  its  short  season  by  nearly  one 
third  ! 

"  The  object  at  length  in  view  is,  to  remedy 
the  evil  without  invidious  and  vain  attempts  to 
attack  much  more  powerful  theatres,  who  have 
an  undoubted  privilege  of  acting  jjlays  all  the 
year  round.  The  proprietor  has  no  intention  of 
tiring  the  public  ear  by  a  querulous  appeal ;  he 
admits  that  others  have  the  fullest  right  to  make 
their  property  as  productive  as  possible;  he 
wishes  merely  to  follow  their  example  ;  and  so- 
licits your  support  in  his  effort  in  establishing  a 
company  of  actors  totally  independent  of  them. 


FROM  REBUILDING  TO  BURNING      155 

There  are  but  three  houses  permitted  to  give 
you  regular  batches  of  plays  in  London ;  and  this 
house  (by  far  the  most  humble)  sees  no  reason 
when  they  will  all  be  making  their  bread,  on 
the  15th  of  next  May ;  why  even  three  of  a  trade 
should  not  perfectly  agree. 

"  Should  his  arrangements  succeed,  which  are 
even  at  this  early  period,  actively  forming,  you 
will  {on  the  reopening  of  the  theatre)  greet  the 
return  to  London  of  some  favourites,  who,  it  is 
trusted,  will  find  no  diminution  of  your  protec- 
tion ;  you  will  witness  new  and  rising  merit, 
which  it  is  your  marked  practice  to  foster.  There 
is  no  theatrical  town  in  the  United  Kingdom 
which  will  not  be  resorted  to,  in  the  hope  of 
procuring  you  its  choicest  produce ;  and,  in  ad- 
dition to  other  authors,  you  will  be  intreated, 
early  in  the  season,  to  show  your  indulgence  to 
the  proprietor's  further  attempts  at  dramatic 
competition ;  whose  pen  he  humbly  hopes,  not- 
withstanding the  long  duration  of  your  encour- 
agement, is  not  yet  quite  worn  out  in  your 
service."  ^ 

Such  was  the  ambitious  "  platform "  of  the 
Haymarket  proprietor  for  the  campaign  of  1803, 
and  every  promise  made  therein  was  carried  out 
punctually  to  the  letter.    Late  in  1802,  Colman 

1  London  Chronicle,  September  16,  1802.  See  also  European 
Magazine  for  May,  1803. 


156  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

writes  to  Elliston,  the  comedian,  relative  to  en- 
gaging him  for  the  season  of  1803,  and  takes 
pains  to  impress  his  determination  to  open  the 
theatre  on  time.  "  In  short,"  he  continues,  "we 
must  meet  on  the  Haymarket  ground  next  year 
for  four  months,  or  not  at  all.  It  is  my  intention 
to  open  the  house  on  the  15th  of  May  with  an 
independent  company  .  .  . "  ^  The  Worcester 
theatre,  Portsmouth,  Weymouth,  Bath,  and  York 
were  levied  on  to  furnish  actors  for  this  experi- 
ment,- and  on  Monday  the  16th  of  May,  1803, 
the  Haymarket  Theatre  opened  free  from  any 
dependence  on  the  patent  houses  for  actors.  If 
the  attendance  was  any  criterion,  the  venture 
was  a  success,  for  "the  house  was  better  attended 
than  is  usual  on  the  first  night."  The  play  for 
the  evening  (^The  Jeio)  was  prefaced  by  a  dra- 
matic sketch  in  one  act,  entitled  No  Prelude^  in 
which  Waldron  appeared  in  the  role  of  prompter, 
lamenting,  in  soliloquy,  the  hard  lines  in  which 
the  Haymarket  had  been  placed,  and  reading  a 
letter  from  Colman,  whimsically  explaining  his 
theatrical  expedients.  Elliston  then  came  on  as 
deputy-manager,  and,  in  the  dialogue  which  fol- 
lowed, the  new  actors  w^ho  had  been  secured  were 
discussed  and  the  support  of  the  public  suppli- 
cated for  them. 

^  Raymond's  Life,  of  Robert  William  Elliston,  p.  78. 
^  London  Chronicle,  May  17,  1803.     Mathews  was  the  chief 
recruit  from  York. 


FROM   REBUILDING  TO   BURNING      157 

The  effort  proved  successful,  and  the  season 
at  the  Haymarket  coincided,  for  the  first  time 
in  years,  with  the  limits  of  the  license.  Again, 
in  1804,  the  Little  Theatre  opened  on  time, 
though  not  quite  so  auspiciously  as  the  year  be- 
fore, as  Drui-y  Lane  did  not  close  her  doors 
until  the  12th  of  June.^  The  summer  season 
this  year  (1804)  was  pushed  once  more  to  Sep- 
tember 15,  and  was  pronounced  "  most  success- 
ful." However,  on  the  closing  night,  the  audience 
showed  some  dissatisfaction,  arising  from  the 
circumstance  of  one  of  the  actors  (a  Mr.  de 
Camp)  being  obliged  to  quit  the  theatre  before 
the  play  was  ended,  in  order  to  attend  an  en- 
gagement at  the  Drury  Lane  Theatre.^  Early 
in  the  season  a  similar  difficulty  arose  when  two 
of  Colman's  actors.  Bannister  and  R.  Palmer, 
continued  at  Drury  Lane,  thereby  crippling  the 
Haymarket  company  for  nearly  two  weeks.  The 
sturdy  resolution  of  Colman  was  thus  check- 
mated at  the  very  beginning  of  its  operation, 
and  the  tactics  displayed  by  the  patentees  in 
this  particular  season  (1804)  became  the  regular 
practice  with  them.  The  provinces  were  scoured 
by  Colman  for  an  independent  company,  only 
to  have  his  best  recruits  at  once  transferred  to 
one  or  the  other  of  the  patent  houses ;    for   it 

1  London  Chronicle,  June  13,  1804. 

2  Ibid.,  September  18,  1804. 


158  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

was  the  ambition  of  every  actor  who  came  up  to 
London  in  those  days  to  get  an  engagement  at 
either  of  the  two  "  great  houses." 

As  a  result  of  Colman's  fruitless  experiment, 
the  Little  Theatre  in  the  Haymarket  was  for 
sale  at  the  close  of  the  season  of  1804 ;  and  be- 
fore the  opening  of  the  ensuing  season,  the  pro- 
perty had  changed  hands,  Messrs.  Morris  and 
Winston  succeeding  to  the  management.*  But 
this  change  in  the  directorship  of  the  theatre 
had  no  effect  on  the  attitude  of  the  patentees, 
who  continued  to  advance  their  winter  perform- 
ances farther  and  farther  into  the  summer  sea- 
son. In  1805,  the  Haymarket  Theatre  did  not 
open  until  June  8,  the  reason  being,  according  to 
the  "  London  Chronicle,"  that  the  new  partner- 
ship had  been  formed  too  late  to  begin  sooner. 
The  real  reason  of  the  delayed  opening  was  that 
the  winter  houses  pleased  to  keep  open  until  late 
in  June,  Covent  Garden  not  closing  until  the 
15th  of  the  month.  From  this  on  until  after  the 
burning  of  the  patent  houses,  the  Haymarket 
fell  back  into  its  old  dependence  on  the  winter 

^  London  Chronicle,  June  10,  17,  1805.  Oulton  has  it  (iii, 
58)  that  one-half  interest  in  the  Haymarket  was  for  sale 
and  that  Colman's  brother-in-law,  Morris,  and  Thomas  Dibdin 
were  supposed  to  be  the  purchasers,  but  that  it  turned  out  that 
Dibdin  declined  to  enter  into  the  transaction,  being  deterred, 
probably,  on  account  of  the  encroachments  of  the  winter 
houses.  Colman  still  remained  in  the  theatre  as  a  shareholder. 


FROM  REBUILDING  TO  BURNING      159 

houses  for  performers,  with  the  practical  admis- 
sion that  it  was  useless  to  oppose  the  "  legal 
monopoly." 

Meantime,  new  conditions  were  arising  which 
were  to  tax  the  ingenuity  of  the  patentees  far 
more  than  any  difficulty  which  had  yet  presented 
itself.  The  old  opera  controversy  had  reap- 
peared in  a  new  phase ;  for  the  Outline  had  not 
altered  men's  natures.  The  large  theatres  had 
gradually  repudiated  the  legitimate  drama;  spec- 
tacle and  dumb-show  had  proved  better  suited 
to  their  size.  Especially  did  the  new  century 
bring  with  it  a  type  of  dramatic  entertainment 
which,  ever  since,  has  succeeded  in  holding  its 
own  in  competition  with  the  regular  drama. 
This  new  species  was  the  melodrama  which  came 
into  England  with  spectres  of  German  castles, 
and  nerve-racking  scenes  of  the  "Monk"  Lewis 
order,  together  with  the  long  train  of  modifica- 
tions and  variations  of  these  which  at  once  fas- 
cinated the  minds  of  the  rabble.  The  patent 
houses  went  with  the  current,  but  the  movement 
was  sure  to  call  for  a  reaction  on  the  part  of 
sticklers  for  the  legitimate  drama.  The  patentees 
were  bound  to  bear  the  brunt  of  the  criticism 
when  it  should  come,  for,  since  the  passage  of  the 
Licensing  Act,  they  had  stood  as  the  champions 
of  Shakespeare  and  Otway. 

But  the  greatest  change,  immediately  affect- 


160  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

ing  the  question  of  patent  rights,  was  in  the 
Lord  Chamberlainship.  When  the  Act  of  1737 
was  under  consideration,  the  monarchical  power 
vested  in  the  Lord  Chamberlain  by  that  act  was 
pointed  out ;  but  the  needs  of  the  case  seemed 
to  demand  some  fixed  responsibility,  and  as  for 
the  patentees,  they  favored  the  act  because  they 
thought  they  saw  in  it  their  bulwark  of  defense 
against. opposition.  And  such  had  been  the  case 
as  proved  by  events.  The  Dukes  of  Grafton 
and  Devonshire,  and  the  Marquis  of  Salisbury 
had  guarded  the  patents  with  a  jealousy  second 
only  to  that  of  the  patentees.  But  there  was 
scarcely  anything  in  the  Licensing  Act  to  insure 
the  perpetuity  of  this  guardianship.  The  office 
and  the  law  remained  after  the  individual  filling 
it  was  no  longer  Lord  Chamberlain.  And  now 
the  other  side  of  the  shield  was  to  be  turned  to 
view.  Salisbury  had  joined  Sheridan  in  his  so- 
called  Opera  Arrangement,  —  which  was  in  re- 
ality a  Drury  Lane  arrangement.  But  Salisbury 
had  been  succeeded  by  the  Earl  of  Dartmouth, 
and  the  Earl  of  Dartmouth  exercised  the  author- 
ity given  him  by  the  Licensing  Act  as  he  saw 
fit,  not  as  dictated  by  the  patentees.  The  boom- 
erang had  returned. 

The  independence  of  the  Earl  of  Dartmouth 
in  the  capacity  of  Lord  Chamberlain  appears  on 
more  than  one  occasion.    In  the  summer  of  1804 


FROM   REBUILDING  TO   BURNING       161 

a  series  of  concerts  were  given  in  London  by 
amateur  native  talent.  These  were  so  successful 
that  Henry  Fulke  Greville,  Esq.  (a  retired 
colonel  in  the  army,  whom  we  shall  hear  more 
of  later)  became  enthusiastic  for  an  established 
English  opera.  He  drew  up  a  plan  of  his 
scheme,  and  sent  it,  together  with  a  letter  (dated 
July  27,  1804),  urging  action  in  the  matter,  to 
the  Earl  of  Dartmouth.  It  was  proposed  to  se- 
cure the  Pantheon  in  Oxford  Street,  and  to  in- 
duce the  Lord  Chamberlain  to  grant  a  license  for 
music  and  dancing  twice  a  week  (Monday  and 
Friday).  Greville  argued  that  such  a  venture 
must  necessarily  succeed,  for,  as  it  was  intended 
to  employ  only  English  singers,  the  national 
vanity  would  b6  flattered,  and  the  entertainments 
would  be  popular.  The  difficulty  of  getting  the 
proprietors  of  the  Pantheon  to  agree  to  a  pro- 
posal to  sell  the  building  was  anticipated:  in 
case  of  failure  in  that  quarter,  it  was  suggested 
that  a  site  in  Albemarle  Street  might  be  had 
where  a  suitable  room  for  the  purpose  could  be 
erected. 

Colonel  Greville's  plan  went  much  further 
than  music  and  dancing.  After  indicting  the 
patent  houses  for  debasing  the  public  morals 
and  literary  taste,  he  boldly  proposed  to  enact 
the  regular  drama  —  "  genuine  comedy  and  ap- 
proved good  tragedy  "  —  on  two  more  days  of 


162  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

the  week  (Tuesday  and  Saturday).  The  house 
should  be  small,  to  hold  not  to  exceed  six  hun- 
dred, and  of  the  "600  persons  attending  these 
nights  amusements,"  prognosticated  the  san- 
guine Colonel,  "  I  will  venture  to  assert  not 
twenty  would  otherwise  have  attended  the  pub- 
lic theatres;  but  granting  the  whole  number 
was  drawn  from  the  theatres,  what  right  and 
title  have  these  establishments  to  a  monopoly 
of  the  whole  town?"  The  Lord  Chamberlain 
apprehended  "  a  great  deal  of  trouble  would  be 
made  by  the  proprietors  of  the  three  winter 
playhouses "  (evidently  including  the  Hay- 
market),  should  they  attempt  to  carry  out 
Greville's  proposed  scheme.  This  was  granted 
by  the  Colonel,  who  insisted  on  the  question 
"whether  improvement  and  utility  are  to  be 
prevented  shooting  forth  to  maturity  because 
the  individual  interests  of  three  patentees  whose 
affairs  are  most  flourishing  are  to  be  in  some 
measure  rivalled."  Greville  had  conversed  on 
the  subject  with  Braham  (the  tenor),  he  said, 
and  that  gentleman  had  fallen  in  with  the  sug- 
gestion to  establish  a  new  theatre.  The  purpose 
and  result  of  such  a  venture  were  summed  up 
by  Colonel  Greville  in  the  hope  that,  "  if  His 
Majesty  would  grant  a  patent  or  even  a  licence, 
I  am  sure  society  might  reap  very  considerable 
benefit,  from    a   greater  encouragement   being 


FROM   REBUILDING   TO   BURNING       163 

administered  to  the  exertion  of  talent  supported 
by  refinement  and  taste."  * 

Lord  Dartmouth  was  unwilling  to  take  the 
step  of  declaring  the  patents  null  and  void  by 
using  his  authority  to  set  up  a  rival  theatre  for 
the  regular  drama  in  the  precincts  of  Westmin- 
ster, and  even  the  license  for  music  and  dancing 
was  not  issued  for  some  time  after  the  corre- 
spondence just  quoted.  For  all  his  enthusiasm 
and  progressiveness,  Colonel  Greville  was  not 
destined  to  inaugurate  the  English  opera  in 
London.  Nevertheless,  his  proposal  in  1804 
marks  the  first  effort  In  that  direction,  and  his 
audacious  plan  to  erect  a  third  theatre  for  the 
regular  drama  is  the  first  legal  attempt  to  break 
through  the  monopoly.^  It  is  of  further  interest 
to  note  that,  though  Lord  Dartmouth  could  not 
be  induced  to  grant  a  license  for  "  genuine  comedy 
and  approved  good  tragedy,"  he  was  not  un- 
friendly to  a  discussion  of  the  points  at  issue. 
That  he  did  not  lean  towards  the  theatrical 
monopoly  is  apparent  from  another  Incident. 
Early  in  1807  he  was  petitioned  in  behalf  of 
James  Grant    Raymond,  Robert   Palmer,  and 

1  Historical  MSS.  Commission,  Report  XV,  pp.  284-286. 

^  I  am  aware,  of  course,  that  Dr.  Arnold,  the  musical  com- 
poser, attempted  to  secure  a  license  in  1794  for  the  Lyceum, 
which  he  had  recently  purchased  and  fitted  up  for  a  theatre. 
But  this  was  for  musical  entertainments.  The  patentees  pre- 
vented the  license. 


164  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

others,  who  alleged  that  the  proprietors  of  the 
Haymarket  were  guilty  of  partiality  against 
the  winter  performers.  The  attitude  of  Lord 
Dartmouth  in  his  answer  to  this  petition  is  un- 
mistakable. The  signatures  are  denounced  as 
forgeries,  and,  if  real,  to  be  only  performers  of 
minor  ability,  "  some  of  them  the  mere  refuse  of 
the  London  Theatres."  To  the  complaints  in  the 
memorial  Lord  Dartmouth's  retort  was  sharp 
and  decisive  :  "  The  grievances  under  which  the 
petition [er]s  appear  to  labour  (if  they  ever  did. 
exist)  exist  no  longer :  but  the  fact  is  that  the 
Winter  London  performers  were  never  aggrieved 
by  the  Summer  Theatre,  while  the  Summer 
Theatre  has  been  long  struggling  to  prevent  it- 
self from  sinking  under  the  power  of  its  Winter 
neighbors."  Instead  of  the  Haymarket  refusing 
to  receive  the  performers  from  the  patent  houses 
(as  asserted  by  the  petition),  it  was  a  well-known 
fact,  retorted  the  Lord  Chamberlain,  that  the 
Little  Theatre  was  forced  to  depend  on  the 
winter  houses  for  its  company  of  performers.^ 

If  any  doubt  remained  as  to  the  Earl  of  Dart- 
mouth's views  respecting  the  patent  houses,  it 
was  soon  removed  by  his  practical  interpretation 
of  that  clause  in  the  Licensing  Act  which  vested 
the  power  to  grant  theatrical  licenses  in  the  Lord 
Chamberlain  alone.  He  had  not  felt  that  he 
1  Historical  MSS.  Commission,  Report  XIII*,  503,  504. 


FROM  REBUILDING  TO  BURNING      165 

dared  openly  to  violate  the  patents  granted  by 
Charles  II,  but  leaving  the  patentees  in  the  en- 
joyment of  their  monopoly  of  the  regular  drama, 
he  turned  to  exercise  the  authority  secured  to 
him  over  the  irregular  drama.  Some  of  the  vari- 
ous places  of  amusement  had  for  years  been  suf- 
fered to  exhibit  a  variety  of  musical  perform- 
ances, dances,  and  pantomimes.  These  were, 
as  has  already  been  pointed  out,  Sadler's  Wells, 
Astley's,  Royal  Circus,  and  Royalty.  To  these 
should  be  added  the  Sans  Souci,  in  Leicester 
Square,  a  little  "  band-box  of  a  theatre,"  built  by 
Charles  Dibdin  and  opened  by  him  on  the  13th 
of  October,  1792,  with  an  entertainment  called 
The  Quissars^  "in  the  course  of  which  he  intro- 
duced one-and-twenty  new  songs."  ^  All  of  these 
had  continued  down  into  the  nineteenth  century 
without  molestation  (except  in  the  case  of  the  Roy- 
alty), for  they  could  scarcely  be  said  to  compete 
or  interfere  with  the  monopoly.  Lord  Dart- 
mouth's friendliness  towards  these  smaller  con- 
cerns now  (1807)  produced  a  perfect  inundation 
of  applications  for  theatrical  licenses.  In  the 
"  Morning  Chronicle  "  for  November  16,  1807, 
appears  the  following  article  on  the  subject : 

"NEW    THEATRES 

"  A  new  Theatre,  the  San  Pareil,  was  opened 
on  Saturday  night   [Nov.  14].    It  is  under  the 

^  London  Chronicle,  October  15,  1792. 


166  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

direction  of  Monsieur  Giroux^  whose  young  and 
elegant  daughters  perform  at  it,  and  which  is 
designed  to  form  a  Nursery  for  the  Opera  and 
other  Theatres.  It  is  a  beautiful  little  place, 
almost  opposite  the  Adelphi,  in  the  Strand. 

"Another  Theatre,  to  be  called  the  Minor 
Theatre,  situate  in  Catherine-street,  is  to  be 
opened  this  night  [Nov.  16,  1807].  There  are 
several  others  in  a  state  of  forwardness,  which 
are  all  to  start  as  rivals  to  the  great  Theatres. 

"  The  theatre,  in  Argyll-street;  ^ 

"  A  theatre,  in  Tottenham  Court-road ; 

"  A  Theatre,  in  Berwick-street ; 

"  A  Theatre,  in  Leicester-fields  [the  Sans 
Souci]  ; 

"  Two  Theatres,  at  the  Lyceum,  in  the  strand; 

"  The  Pavilion,  in  Wych-street ; 

"Besides  Sadler's  Wells,  the  Royal  Amphi- 
theatre, the  Circus,  and  the  Royalty. 

"  In  addition  to  all  which,  we  understand  that 
application  has  been  made  to  the  Lord  Chamber- 
lain to  grant  a  licence  for  a  New  Opera. 

"Paris  must  hide  its  head." 

This  marks  the  first  great  stirring  of  practical 
opposition  to  the  patent  houses.  But  even  now, 
the  action  of  the  Lord  Chamberlain  in  granting 
licenses  to   the  lesser  establishments  for  enter- 

^  The  Argyll  Street  Institution    decided    to  wait   another 
season,  pending  the  difficulties  of  the  King's  Theatre. 


FROM  REBUILDING  TO  BURNING      167 

tainments  outside  the  regular  drama  need  not 
have  produced  any  serious  rivalry  to  the  "  great 
houses,"  had  not  the  latter  seen  fit  to  accept  the 
challenge  and  to  abandon  the  ground  appropri- 
ated to  their  exclusive  use  by  the  monopoly.  As 
it  turned  out,  they  took  alarm  at  the  innovation 
and  audacity  of  the  Lord  Chamberlain  in  pre- 
suming to  grant  a  license  without  their  consent 
and  approval,  and  were  resolved  to  chastise  the 
upstart  offenders.  Thus  was  inaugurated  the 
war  between  the  majors  and  minors,  which  was 
not  to  cease  until  the  monopoly  itself  was  no 
more.  It  was  given  out  on  "undoubted  author- 
ity" that  the  proprietors  of  the  winter  theatres 
had  resolved  "  to  put  an  immediate  stop  to  the 
encroachments  made  on  their  property,  under 
the  authority  of  the  Lord  Chamberlain."  Coun- 
sel were  employed,  who  gave  the  decided  opin- 
ion that  the  patents  were  explicit  and  absolute 
as  to  what  theatres  should  exist  in  Westmin- 
ster, and  that  any  attempt  on  the  part  of  the 
Lord  Chamberlain  to  license  any  other  place 
for  theatrical  representations,  without  the  con- 
sent of  the  patentees,  was  an  infringement  on 
those  patents,  and,  hence,  was  illegal.  "  Cer- 
tain it  is,"  continued  the  argument  for  the 
monopoly,  "that  from  the  day  the  first  royal 
patent  was  granted  to  Old  Drury,  through  the 
whole  of    Mr.  Garrick's  time,  and  ever  since, 


168  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

until  the  cbamberlainship  of  Lord  Salisbury, 
the  uniform  practice  at  the  Chamberlain's  Of- 
fice, was  to  refuse  even  to  listen  to  an  appli- 
cation for  a  single  night,  though  for  a  charity 
benefit,  unless  the  party  applying  brought  with 
them  the  previous  consent  in  writing  of  the 
Proprietors  of  the  established  Theatres." 

So  much  for  the  legal  claim  of  protection  to 
the  patents.  In  addition  to  this,  the  patentees 
referred  to  their  title  in  equity,  averring  that, 
even  if  the  right  were  with  the  Lord  Chamberlain, 
nevertheless  he  was  "  bound  by  positive  covenant " 
not  to  license  any  new  concern  for  dramatic 
exhibitions.  And  here  the  underlying  motives 
of  the  Outline  for  a  General  Opera  Arrange- 
Tnent  came  to  the  surface.  That  was  the  "cove- 
nant," the  result  of  "  a  long  discussion  and 
arbitration,  recognizing  and  guaranteeing  the 
exclusive  rights  of  the  three  established  The- 
atres," which,  it  was  pointed  out  with  an  air  of 
injured  right  and  dignity,  had  been  signed  by  the 
Marquis  of  Salisbury,  and  had  been  honored 
by  the  concurrence  of  his  Royal  Highness  the 
Prince  of  Wales  himself.  On  the  faith  of  that 
settlement,  "so  guaranteed,"  the  proprietors  of 
Drury  Lane  had,  they  protested,  laid  out  a  con- 
siderable sum  for  the  "  dormant  patent,"  the 
King's  Theatre  (Opera  House)  had  "contributed 
thirty  thousand  pounds  on  recovering  its  licence 


FROM   REBUILDING  TO   BURNING       169 

.  .  . ;  and  finally  this  deed  formed  the  whole 
foundation  for  the  rebuilding  of  Drury  Lane 
Theatre,  in  which  undertaking  a  property  not 
less  than  three  hundred  thousand  pounds  have 
been  embarked,  and  all  in  the  confidence  and 
on  the  faith  of  this  arrangement,  secured  under 
such  high  authority." 

Threat  was  made  by  the  patentees,  that,  should 
the  proprietors  of  the  Opera  House  (King's 
Theatre  in  the  Haymarket)  not  succeed  in  set- 
tling their  wrangles,  they  would  resort  to  the 
"  dormant  patent  "  for  the  benefit  of  the  winter 
houses,  "  which  patent  is  at  present  only  withheld 
from  being  operative  through  respect  to  the 
established  Opera  House,  and  the  terms  of  the 
affreeraent  before  referred  to."  The  defense  of 
the  patentees  included  also  a  proposed  petition 
to  the  Crown. ^ 

This  statement  of  the  patentees'  demand,  that 
the  Lord  Chamberlain  restrict  the  duties  of  his 
office  in  such  manner  as  to  insure  the  inviolabil- 
ity of  the  monopoly,  fairly  defines  the  contest 
which  was  soon  to  wax  fierce  and  strong.  Ac- 
cording to  the  position  taken  by  the  monopoly 
owners,  the    patents    issued    by    Charles    II    to 

^  The  outline  of  the  patentees'  position  in  the  controversy 
with  Lord  Dartmouth  was  printed  in  the  Morning  Chronicle  for 
November  21,  1807.  See  also  European  Magazine  for  Novem- 
ber, 180T  ;  and  The  Cabinet  for  December,  1807. 


170  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

Killigrew  and  Davenant  took  precedence  over 
all  subsequent  acts  of  Parliament,  and  the  latter 
were  effective  only  as  interpreted  by  the  patent- 
ees. The  acquiescence  of  the  Lord  Chamber- 
lains, from  the  time  the  Licensing  Act  was 
passed  to  the  reign  of  Lord  Dartmouth,  in  the 
wishes  of  the  patentees,  was  proof  to  the  latter 
that  the  Lord  Chamberlainship  existed  for  the 
sake  of  the  patent  houses,  and  that  the  Licens- 
ing Act  simply  legalized  that  relationship.  Lord 
Dartmouth's  appreciation  of  his  functions  as  Lord 
Chamberlain  revealed  the  possibilities  of  conflict- 
ing authority  which  had  lurked  in  the  theatrical 
monopoly  ever  since  its  creation,  and  especially 
since  1737. 

In  support  of  the  Lord  Chamberlain's  abso- 
lute authority  in  theatrical  matters,  precedent 
was  not  wanting.  The  patents  themselves  de- 
pended on  that  official  for  enforcement,  even 
when  the  patent  houses  alone  were  concerned. 
When,  in  King  William's  reign,  the  clause  was 
violated,  prohibiting  one  of  the  theatres  receiv- 
ing an  actor  from  the  other  theatre  without  the 
consent  of  the  latter,  the  authority  of  the  Lord 
Chamberlain  was  sought  to  correct  the  abuse. 
We  have  seen  also,  in  the  case  of  Betterton's  re- 
volt, that  it  was  through  the  mediation  of  the 
Lord  Chamberlain  that  a  license  was  secured  from 
the  King  for  the  revolters ;  and  in  the  later  re- 


FROM   REBUILDING  TO   BURNING       171 

volts,  already  considered,  the  Lord  Chamberlain's 
authority  was  not  doubted,  except  in  a  single  in- 
stance, and  even  then  Steele  was  forced  to  sub- 
mit to  the  silencing  order  of  that  official.  This 
authority  went  so  far  as  to  restrain  and  chastise 
the  conduct  of  actors  when  not  employed  at  the 
theatres,  for  the  Lord  Chamberlain  was  the 
mouthpiece  of  the  Crown  in  all  theatrical  affairs. 
Finally,  the  Licensing  Act  itself  confirmed  the 
absolutism  of  the  Lord  Chamberlain's  power, 
and  especially  relegated  to  him  the  authority  of 
licensing  theatres.  Viewed  in  this  light,  it  mat- 
tered little  to  Lord  Dartmouth  that  a  contradic- 
tion of  authority  was  contained  in  the  Act  of 
1737.  The  attempt  to  exercise  both  authorities 
at  the  same  time  would  prove  which  was  the  real 
one.  If  the  conduct  of  actors,  the  licensing  of 
theatres,  the  contentions  of  managers,  and  the 
differences  between  actors  and  managers  fell 
within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Lord  Chamberlain, 
there  were  grave  reasons  for  believing  in  the  final 
authority  of  that  official.  Relative  to  the  last 
point,  the  disagreements  of  actors  and  mana- 
gers. Lord  Dartmouth  had  his  deputy  (T.  B. 
Mash)  make  an  investigation  of  the  historical 
precedents  on  the  subject.  This  led  to  the  dis- 
covery of  a  document  ^  in  which  the  Lord  Cham- 
berlain's viltimate  authority  is  established  in  all 
^  Unfortunately,  this  document  is  now,  probably,  lost,  but 


172  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

cases  of  controversy  between  actors  and  mana- 
gers. Sir  R.  Steele's  case  is  the  only  exception 
noted  of  a  denial  of  the  Chamberlain's  absolute 
authority  over  theatrical  matters. 

The  presentation  of  the  patentees'  case  throws 
light,  also,  on  the  Opera  Arrangement  of  1792. 
It  now  (1807)  transpires  that  the  underlying 
motive  of  the  settlement  was  to  reinforce  the 
"legal  monopoly,"  and  to  make  possible  the  re- 
building of  Drury  Lane  Theatre.  This  appears 
in  the  explanation  of  the  purchase  of  the  "  dor- 
mant patent,"  and  in  the  threat  to  use  that  pat- 
ent if  the  "  new  projects  "  (the  minor  theatres) 
were  not  abandoned  forthwith,  notwithstanding 
the  "  guaranteed  faith  "  of  the  opera  arrange- 
ment. That  the  Outline  was  a  blind  to  hide  the 
schemes  of  the  patentees,  especially  of  Sheridan, 
is  evident  in  the  confession  that  the  securing  of 
Italian  opera  to  the  King's  Theatre  was  a  mere 
sop  to  be  repudiated  whenever  the  interests  of 
the  patentees  were  endangered. 

Another  question  of  interest  in  the  protest  of 
the  patentees  against  the  Lord  Chamberlain  is 
connected  with  the  "  dormant  patent."  Did  Sher- 
idan think  when  he  purchased  it  in  1792  to 
strengthen  his  monopoly  '•:  If  so,  why  did  he  not 

the  results  of  the  investigation  are  extant  in  a  letter  from 
T.  B.  Mash  to  Lord  Dartmouth  (dated  Aug.  17,  1809).  Ris- 
torical  MSS.    Commission,  Report  XIII  *,  p.  505. 


FROM  REBUILDING  TO   BURNING      173 

make  use  of  it  instead  of  the  21-year  license? 
Or,  rather,  did  he  hold  it  in  reserve,  as  indicated 
by  the  above  statement,  as  a  safeguard  against 
any  attempt  to  establish  a  rival  theatre  ?  And 
did  the  patentees  have  any  genuine  confidence 
in  the  efficacy  of  the  "dormant  patent"  for  any 
purpose  ?  The  exact  status  of  the  old  Killigrew 
patent  had  not  been  determined  in  1807,  but 
the  time  was  not  far  distant  when  it,  and  the 
whole  question  of  patent  rights  in  theatres,  was 
to  be  reviewed  in  a  manner  to  test  the  sincerity 
of  the  patentees'  pretenses  regarding  it.  Mean- 
time, the  fact  was  significant  that  Sheridan  had 
permitted  the  "dormant  patent"  to  remain 
asleep  after  its  supposed  purchase  from  Harris 
in  1792,  and  the  bluster  about  reviving  it  did  not 
seem  to  scare  Lord  Dartmouth.  The  resistance 
of  the  patent  houses  to  the  authority  of  the 
Lord  Chamberlain  in  granting  licenses  to  the 
minor  concerns  was  as  useless  as  that  of  the 
Haymarket  had  been  against  the  encroachments 
of  the  winter  houses.  A  still  greater  danger, 
which  shook  the  old  concerns  to  their  very  foun- 
dations, was  in  store  for  the  defenders  of  monop- 
oly rights.  But  never  in  the  history  of  the  patent 
houses  did  the  zeal  and  courage  of  the  patentees 
appear  to  such  advantage  as  when  beset  by  the 
direst  events.  The  first  catastrophe  —  the  burn- 
ing of  both  the  "  great  houses,"  Covent  Garden 


174  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

in  1808,  and  Drury  Lane  in  1809  — was  in  itself 
sufficient  to  daunt  the  proprietors;  while  the  at- 
tempt, following  immediately  on  these  disasters, 
to  establish  a  third  theatre  in  London,  was  even 
more  discouraging.  A  consideration  of  this  at- 
tempt, the  most  important  single  episode  in  the 
history  of  the  struggle  to  break  the  shackles 
of  the  theatrical  monopoly,  will  form  the  basis  of 
the  next  chapter. 


CHAPTER  VIII 

AN  ATTEMPT  TO  ESTABLISH  A  THIRD  THEATRE  : 
PRIVY  COUNCIL  PROCEEDINGS 

EARLY  on  the  morning  of  September  20, 
1808,  Covent  Garden  Theatre  was  discov- 
ered to  be  on  fire  ;  in  a  few  hours  it  was  entirely 
consumed.  With  unexampled  energy,  a  new  struc- 
ture was  begun  before  the  close  of  the  year,  and 
almost  precisely  one  year  from  the  date  of  the 
conflagration,  the  new  theatre,  larger  and  more 
magnificent  than  ever,  was  thrown  open  for 
theatrical  exhibitions.  The  immense  expense  to 
which  the  proprietors  had  been  subjected  in 
erecting  the  new  building  (the  estimated  cost 
was  X300,000)  led  them  to  increase  the  price  of 
admission  to  the  performances.  This  action 
precipitated  the  notorious  "  O.  P."  (i.  e.  "Old 
Price")  riots  which  lasted  from  the  opening 
night,  September  18,  to  December  17,  1809, 
when  a  compromise  was  reached  between  the 
managers  and  the  public.  The  London  theatre- 
goer of  the  seventeenth  and  eighteenth  centuries 
had  been  used  to  fracases  in  the  pit  and  boxes, 
and  even  to  riots  of  brief  duration  and  respect- 
able limits.  But  the  "  O.  P."  riots  touched  the  high- 


170  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

water  mark,  especially  in  the  matter  of  time  and 
the  zeal  with  which  they  were  conducted.  Pande- 
monium reigned  almost  continuously  for  the  sixty- 
seven  nights  on  which  the  Covent  Garden  The- 
atre was  open,  during  the  period  of  three  months 
following  the  opening  night.  Matching  the  per- 
sistence of  the  rioters  —  that  is  the  audiences  — 
were  the  obstinacy  and  haughty  demeanor  of  the 
proprietors  ^  in  refusing  to  be  dictated  to  at  all 
by  the  rabble. 

I  have  given  above  what  is  generally  supposed 
to  have  been  the  cause  of  the  "  O.  P."  riots, 
namely,  the  advance  in  the  admission  prices  to 
the  theatre ;  and  certainly  this  was  one  of  the 
chief  origins  of  the  tumults.  But  there  were 
other  factors  of  great  importance  entering  into 
the  dispute.  The  increased  dimensions  of  the 
new  edifice,  it  was  claimed,  had  been  made  at  the 
sacrifice  of  the  drama,  for  though  a  large  house 
would  hold  more  people  than  a  small  one  and,  in 
one  respect,  be  more  for  the  public  accommoda- 
tion, yet  a  great  loss  was  sustained  thereby  to  the 
drama  itself,  as  no  actor  could  hope  to  give  the 
finer  tones  to  expression  and,  at  the  same  time, 
be  heard  and  seen  by  the  audience  in  all  parts 
of  the  house.    As  a  result,  pantomime  and  spec- 

^  In  1802  John  Philip  Kemble  purchased  of  Harris  a  one- 
sixth  share  in  Covent  Garden.  The  next  year  (1803)  Kemble 
became  acting-manager  of  that  theatre. 


I 


A  THIRD  THEATRE  ATTEMPTED      177 

tacle  were  resorted  to,  to  the  detriment  of  the  dra- 
matic art  and  to  the  lowering  of  the  public  taste. 

Another  cause  of  complaint,  tending  to  pro- 
duce the  riots  of  1809,  was  the  employment  of 
foreign  troupes  in  the  new  theatre,  in  preference 
to  English  companies.  The  average  Englishman 
had  always  been  extremely  sensitive  on  this  point, 
and  unquestionably  it  was  a  most  inopportune 
time  for  the  Covent  Garden  managers  to  import 
their  actors  and  actresses  when  England's  rela- 
tions with  the  Continent  were  anything  but  set- 
tled. The  mere  mention  of  a  foreigner  for  the 
English  stage,  even  in  times  of  profound  peace, 
was  sufficient  to  cause  an  outcry  against  the 
practice.  As  a  result  of  this  antipathy,  Mme. 
Catalini,  who  had  been  engaged  by  the  Covent 
Garden  management  to  open  tne  season,  was 
compelled  to  cancel  her  engagement  before  the 
disturbances  could  be  quelled. 

Of  a  more  serious  nature  was  the  indictment 
brought  against  the  new  arrangement  of  private 
boxes  at  Covent  Garden  Theatre.  This  was  a 
question  touching  public  morals  directly  ;  for, 
it  was  declared,  the  new  private  boxes  were  "  in 
open  defiance  of  public  decency."  It  was  a  noto- 
rious fact  that  this  new  adjunct  had  been  made 
to  the  theatre  to  accommodate  the  lewd  women 
of  the  town.  That  this  was  one  of  the  leading 
causes  of  the  riot  may  be  seen  from  the  fact 


175  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

that,  in  September,  1810,  when  Covent  Garden 
opened  for  the  season,  the  riots  were  renewed 
because  the  proprietors  had  not  fulfilled  that 
part  of  the  compromise  of  the  year  before,  call- 
ing for  a  removal  of  the  private  boxes.^ 

Out  of  the  riots  themselves  developed  cir- 
cumstances which  were  used  as  serious  charges 
against  the  proprietors.  During  the  progress 
of  the  disturbances,  the  attitude  of  the  audi- 
ences became  frequently  so  threatening  that 
the  managers  of  the  theatre  thought  to  defend 
themselves  and  property  by  opposing  force  with 
force,  if  need  arose.  As  a  result  of  this  foolish 
policy,  "pugilists,  jews,  and  the  most  ruffianly 
inhabitants  of  the  metropolis,  appeared  in  the 
pit,  to  support  the  cause  of  the  proprietors." 
It  was  generally  supposed  at  the  time  that  these 
bruisers  were  admitted  to  the  theatre  free  of 
charge,  "  for  the  sole  object  of  preserving  pub- 
lic tranquility."  This  manoeuvre  was  almost,  if 
not  quite,  as  unpopular  as  the  cause  generally 
adduced  for  the  riots,  and  only  operated  to  ag- 
gravate the  mischief  it  was  intended  to  reduce.' 

^  London  Chronicle,  September  11-25,  1810.  The  compiler 
of  the  Covent  Garden  Journal  says  (in  his  Preface,  i,  22) 
apropos  of  the  riots,  "  The  most  important  feature  in  the  fol- 
lowing discussion,  undoubtedly,  is  that  of  the  private  boxes." 
See  also  Advertiser  for  October  26,  1809. 

^  Considerations  on  the  Past  and  Present  State  of  the  Stage, 
etc.,  pamphlet,  pp.  54+Appendix,  London,  1809.  See  also 
London  Times,  November  14,  1809. 


A  THIRD  THEATRE  ATTEMPTED       179 

As  might  be  expected,  the  managers  of  Cov- 
ent  Garden  Theatre  were  arraigned  by  the 
public  for  bringing  about  these  disgraceful 
scenes,  by  an  injudicious,  if  not  tyrannical,  ex- 
ercise of  power ;  and  the  discussion  which  fol- 
lowed on  the  disorders  sought  to  inquire  into 
the  nature  of  the  privileges  contained  in  the 
patents.  It  was  openly  charged  on  the  propri- 
etors that  they  had  dared  to  advance  the  price 
of  admission,  knowing  that  they  had  no  compe- 
tition, and  that  the  public  would  be  forced,  there- 
fore, to  submit  to  their  demands.^  In  regard  to 
the  question  of  admission,  the  patentees  rejoined 
that  the  original  patent  issued  by  Charles  II  ex- 
plicitly gave  to  the  holders  the  privilege  of  fixing 
the  price  of  admission  ;  that  the  theatrical  busi- 
ness in  London  was  "  their  own  monopoly,"  and 
that,  being  a  monopoly,  any  attempt  on  the  part 
of  the  public  to  dictate  the  terms  of  management 
was  a  violation  of  property  rights.  To  this  it 
was  retorted  that  the  patents  contained,  like- 
wise, the  clear  intimation  that  theatrical  amuse- 
ments were  for  the  benefit  of  the  public ;  that 
the  grants  of  Charles  II  to  Davenant  and  Killi- 
grew  were  unlike  monopolies  in  general  (which 
give  exclusive  privileges  to  their  possessors),  in 

^  Covent  Garden  Journal,  ii,  616.  It  should  be  remarked 
that  Drury  Lane  Theatre  burned  on  the  24th  of  February, 
1809.     See  also  pamphlet  signed  "  Candidus." 


180  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

that  they  were  held  in  trust  for  the  benefit  of 
the  public  ;  that  any  adv^antage  accruing  to  the 
patentees  from  the  monopoly  was  in  no  sense 
absolute,  but  conditional  on  a  return  to  the  pub- 
lic of  services  in  proportion  to  the  favor  ex- 
perienced by  the  Crown  protection  to  the  mono- 
polists; and  that  any  violation  or  abuse  of  the 
privileges  contained  in  the  monopoly  was  suf- 
ficient cause  to  nullify  it.  At  best,  the  patents 
were  very  shadowy  documents,  and  their  use  to 
invade  the  rights  of  the  public  was  never  in- 
tended, nor  would  it  be  tolerated.  The  law  of 
custom  was  as  much  to  be  observed  as  any  grant 
of  so  doubtful  title  as  the  theatrical  patents, 
and  the  arbitrary  advance  of  price  to  the  theatre 
could  not  be  legally,  or  justly,  sustained  on  the 
plea  of  a  "  legal  monopoly."  ^ 

On  the  other  hand,  there  were  moderate  crit- 
ics of  the  theatrical  situation  who  looked  upon 
any  attempt  to  compel  the  managers  of  Covent 
Garden  to  sell  entertainment  to. the  people  at  the 
price  dictated  by  the  purchaser  to  be  a  palpable 
violation  of  the  rights  of  property.     Those  tak- 

1  CohbetVs,  December  16,  1809 ;  Covent  Garden  Journal,  ii, 
616-624,  et  passim.  ' '  The  only  ground  on  which  such  a  mo- 
nopoly can  be  defended,"  says  the  editor,  "  is  the  means  it 
gives  to  its  possessors  of  catering  for  the  public  amusement 
at  a  cheaper  rate  than  they  could  do  if  their  trade  -were 
open  and  unlimited."  See  also,  in  this  connection,  Consid- 
erations on  the  Past  and  Present  State  of  the  Stage. 


A  THIRD   THEATRE   ATTEMPTED       181 

ing  this  view  thought  that  extenuating  circum- 
stances might  make  it  necessary  to  increase  the 
price  of  entertainments  as  well  as  any  other  com- 
modity; almost  everything  had  doubled  in  price 
since  the  close  of  the  French  Revolution,  and 
why  not  the  admission  to  the  theatre  ?  Further- 
more, it  was  pointed  out  by  cool-headed,  unpre- 
judiced observers,  the  slight  advance  of  one  shil- 
ling to  the  boxes  and  sixpence  to  the  pit  was 
a  matter  too  trifling  to  quibble  over,  much  less  to 
create  a  riot.^ 

But  on  the  other  counts  brought  against  the 
managers,  public  opinion  was  scarcely  divided. 
The  deleterious  effects  of  the  increased  dimen- 
sions of  the  theatre  on  the  drama  and  on  acting 
have  been  mentioned.  The  old  building  had 
been  too  large  for  the  effective  representation  of 
Shakespeare's  plays,  for  which  reason  buffoon- 
ery, pantomime,  and  melodrama  had  been  sub- 
stituted, to  the  detriment  of  the  stage  and  the 
degradation  of  the  public  taste.  The  new  theatre 
emphasized  these  evils,  and  for  the  banishment 
of  the  legitimate  drama  from  the  English  stage 
the  management  was  held  responsible.  It  was 
irony,  not  charity,   that  dictated  such  criticism 

^  Cobbett's,  December  7,  and  16,  1809 ;  Covent  Garden  Jour- 
nal, ii,  707-710  ;  768-765.  Cobbett  admits  one  evil  caused 
by  the  advanced  prices  to  the  pit  and  boxes  (for  the  price 
to  the  galleries  remained  the  same),  namely,  that  poor  people 
must  necessarily  take  the  back,  and  less  satisfactory,  seats. 


182  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

as  this :  "  But  this  [the  then  existing  state  of 
the  stage]  is  not  such  a  sign  of  perverted  taste 
as  it  is  of  a  prudent  toleration  of  Blue  Beards, 
Kettledrums,  or  the  distant  view  of  the  big-bel- 
lied Virgins  of  the  sun  ;  for  if  the  manager  did 
not  provide  these,  he  could  give  the  audience 
nothing."  A  contrast  between  the  theatre  in  the 
days  of  Garrick  and  the  new  Covent  Garden 
Theatre  was  a  subject  for  lament  among  those 
who  could  remember  the  time  when  everything 
connected  with  the  dramatic  and  histrionic  arts 
was  made  to  subserve  the  arts  themselves.  From 
a  tract,  written  by  Frederick  Howard,  Earl  of 
Carlisle,  at  the  time  of  the  "O.  P."  riots,  I  quote 
the  following  extract,  pertinent  to  the  discussion 
in  hand : 

"  A  modern  audience  would  be  surprised  to 
hear  how  the  public  were  accommodated  forty 
years  ago  [i.  e.,  circa  1770].  The  side  boxes 
were  few  in  number,  and  very  incommodious, 
especially  when  the  frequenters  of  those  boxes 
ever  appeared  in  them  in  full  dresses,  the 
women  in  hoops  of  various  dimensions,  and 
the  men  with  swords  and  habiliments  all  calcu- 
lated to  deny  convenient  space  to  their  neigh- 
bours. Frocks  were  admitted  into  the  front  boxes, 
but  they  were  not  usually  worn  by  gentlemen  in 
the  evening  ;  women  of  the  town  quietly  took 
their   stations  in  the  upper   boxes,  called    the 


A  THIRD  THEATRE  ATTEMPTED       183 

green  boxes ;  and  men  whom  it  did  not  suit 
either  to  be  at  the  expense  of  dress,  or  who  had 
not  time  to  equip  themselves,  as  before  described, 
resorted  to  the  pit.  This  of  course  comprehended 
a  large  description  of  persons,  such  as  belonged 
to  the  inns  of  court,  men  of  liberal  pursuits  and 
professions  ;  and  who,  by  an  uniform  attendance 
at  the  playhouse,  became  no  incompetent  judges 
of  the  drama. 

"  Their  situation  in  the  pit  enabled  them  to 
hear  and  to  observe.  Their  habits  of  life  led 
them  to  an  acquaintance  with  the  authors  and 
the  actors  of  the  day ;  the  latter  were  not  ig- 
norant they  were  continually  before  a  tribunal 
that  makes  itself  respected,  and  whose  sentence 
conferred  fame  or  censure ;  and  they  were  con- 
vinced that  negligence,  ebriety,  and  buffoonery 
would  not  be  suffered  to  pass  unnoticed  or  un- 
punished. Garrick's  voice,  with  that  of  many 
others  in  his  troop,  reached  without  effort  the 
deepest  part  of  the  front  boxes,  nor  was  lost 
even  in  the  farthest  rows  of  the  galleries.  The 
general  custom  of  wearing  swords  was  certainly 
productive  of  spilling  blood  before  resentment 
found  time  to  cool ;  but  as  far  as  the  theatre  was 
concerned  it  was  instrumental  to  decorum ;  the 
scene  was  hardly  ever  disconcerted  by  noisy 
quarrels,  blows,  or  such  indecencies  as  we  now 
witness ;    the    weapon    was   at   hand,   and   the 


184  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

appeal  to  it  was  rather  more  serious  than  to  the 
fist,  and  enabled  the  weakest  to  contend  with 
the  most  athletic.  Women  of  the  town  were 
never  permitted  in  the  boxes  below  stairs  with 
the  single  exception  of  the  beautiful  Kitty 
Fisher,  whose  appearance  occasioned  great  dis- 
may among  all  the  frequenters,  male  and  female, 
of  the  hitherto  unpolluted  front  boxes.  .  .  .  The 
stage  formerly  seemed  to  have  commanded  more 
universal  interest  than  at  present.  .  .  .  These 
circumstances,  with  many  others,  incline  me  to 
believe  that  the  beauties  of  the  author,  and  the 
merits  of  the  player,  were  much  more  constantly, 
than  in  these  days,  the  topics  of  conversation 
and  observation ;  the  natural  consequence  of 
hearing  accurately,  and  of  being  able  not  only 
to  compare  one  actor  with  another,  but  with 
himself  ;  a  perpetual  stimulant  to  the  latter  to 
exertion,  and  not  to  trifle  with  the  audience.  .  .  . 
"  The  audience  formerly,  and  in  the  times  I 
am  alluding  to,  were  contented  to  attend  favour- 
ite performances  and  performers  under  much 
inconvenience,  and  what  would  now  be  called 
disfigurement  of  the  scene  ;  but  still  they  saw 
and  heard,  and,  even  with  the  following  enumer- 
ated abatements  of  the  illusory  charm,  crowded 
the  house.  At  a  benefit  of  the  principal  actor  or 
actress,  a  large  division  of  the  pit  was  added  to 
the  front  boxes,  leaving  few  rows  of  the  former; 


A  THIRD   THEATRE   ATTEMPTED        185 

besides  this,  many  seats  were  placed  on  the  stage, 
so  as  to  afford  the  actors  a  very  contracted  space, 
not  more  perhaps  than  twenty  feet  square ;  this 
o£  course  excluded  for  the  night  almost  all  the 
accustomed  decorations  and  change  of  scenery  ; 
but  these  inconveniences  were  thought  lightly  of, 
partly  because  long  habit  had  inured  the  spec- 
tators to  sixffer  them,  partly  because  the  two 
great  faculties  of  the  ear  and  eye  were  still  re- 
tained ;  while  now  we  are  made  to  accept  as 
compensation  for  the  surrender  of  these,  an 
expensive  and  tinsel  pantomime,  the  noisy  music 
of  which  may  be  heard  where  the  human  voice 
could  never  reach,  and  the  glittering  robe  of 
a  Blue  Beard  be  discovered,  where  no  eye  could 
observe  upon  any  change  or  expression  of  the 
actor's  countenance."  ^ 

The  matter  of  personal  safety  also  entered 
into  the  question  of  the  size  of  the  theatres.  In 
case  of  fire  during  a  performance,  it  was  pointed 
out,  in  such  large  structures  the  casualty  list 
must  necessarily  be  great,  for  a  large  audience 
would  be  liable  to  stampede  and  trample  many 
to  death. ^    A  small  theatre  was  freer  from  this 

^  Thoughts  upon  the  Present  Condition  of  the  Stage,  and  upon 
the  Construction  of  a  New  Theatre.  By  Frederick  Howard,  Earl 
of  Carlisle,  pp.  47  +  Appendix,  London,  1809. 

^  The  Sadler's  Wells  horror  (October  15,  1807)  was  fresh  in 
the  minds  of  people.  Owing  to  a  false  alarm  of  fire,  a  panic 
ensued,  in  which  more  than  twenty  persons  were  crushed  to 
death. 


186  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

danger.  As  to  the  plea  of  the  patentees,  that  the 
increased  population  of  the  metropolis  required 
larger  theatres  to  accommodate  the  audiences, 
the  answer  was  sought  in  the  simple  question, 
Why  are  there  not  more  licensed  theatres  ?  Some 
went  even  so  far  as  to  suggest  that  the  increased 
dimensions  of  the  new  Covent  Garden  Theatre, 
with  the  consequent  bad  effect  on  the  public 
good,  was  sufficient  to  work  a  revocation  of  the 
patent.  "Now,"  argues  one,  "  though  the  exact 
dimensions  of  the  theatre  cannot  be  supposed  to 
be  dictated  by  the  patent,  yet  the  erection  of  the 
building,  adequate  to  the  rational  purposes  of 
the  drama,  must  have  been  one  of  the  virtual 
stipulations  on  which  it  was  granted ;  and  if  so 
it  may  deserve  consideration,  how  far  the  erect- 
ing the  present  structure  (beautiful  and  appro- 
priate to  other  objects,  as  I  admit  it  to  be)  does 
not,  in  strictness,  work  a  forfeiture  of  the  pro- 
prietors' monopoly."  ^ 

Of  a  far  more  serious  nature  was  the  indict- 
ment brought  against  the  Covent  Garden  man- 
agement for  the  arrangement  of  the  private 
boxes  in  the  new  theatre,  "in  open  defiance  of 

^  Considerations  on  the  Past  and  Present  State  of  the  Stage. 
The  patent  theatres,  before  their  enlargement  in  1790-94 
•would  each  hold  about  a  £300  audience ;  after  the  rebuilding 
of  the  theatres  after  the  fires  of  1808-09,  the  two  theatres 
together  would  accommodate  £1500  audiences,  Drury  Lane 
alone,  on  occasion,  holding  over  £800. 


A  THIRD  THEATRE  ATTEMPTED       187 

public  decency."  The  excuse  given  by  the  pro- 
prietors for  this  innovation  was,  that  some  per- 
sons "  feel  it  necessary,  or  convenient,  to  segregate 
themselves  and  their  families,  more  especially 
the  younger  females,  from  some  of  those  incon- 
veniences inseparable  from  a  public  theatre."  It 
was  evident  to  every  one  that  the  "  inconven- 
iences "  had  but  one  meaning,  namely,  the 
women  of  the  town  who  were  a  nuisance  to  the 
real  auditory  and  a  disgrace  to  the  management  of 
both  the  patent  theatres.  It  was  pertinently  asked, 
whether  the  private  boxes  were  merely  the  re- 
treat of  decency  alone,  or  rather  were  they  not 
constructed  to  serve  the  very  opposite  purpose  ? 
"  If,"  says  Sir  Frederick  Howard  in  his  "  Thoughts 
upon  the  Present  Condition  of  the  Stage,"  "  the 
internal  part  of  the  theatre  had  attractions  to 
keep  those  who  pay  at  the  door,  in  their  places, 
the  lobbies  would  not  be  filled  with  profligates 
of  every  description,  familiarizing  the  yet  uncor- 
rupted  and  modest  to  scenes  of  such  meretricious 
impudence,  hardly  exaggerated  by  Hogarth  in 
the  supper  in  his  Rake's  Progress.  What  parent 
could  conduct  his  wife  and  daughters  through 
this  sty  without  trembling  with  the  fear,  that 
though  those  sights  are  to  them  shocking  and 
horrible,  they  may  not  be  so  to-morrow?  An 
audience  who  went  to  the  play  to  hear  and  see, 
would    quickly    interfere    with    these    orgies." 


188  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

Worst  of  all,  the  managers  were  fearlessly  ac- 
cused of  fostering  immorality  for  the  immense 
profits  which  accrued  to  them  from  the  rental  of 
the  private  boxes,  and  this  was  declared  to  be  a 
perversion  of  the  terms  of  the  patents  which  were 
intended  to  sanction  public  theatres,  not  private 
bagnios.*  "The  royal  patent  can  be  no  more 
construed  to  sanction  improper  practices  in  its 
holders  than  could  the  licence  which  was  for- 
merly given  to  public  stews  indemnify  the  owners 
of  them  from  a  like  responsibility.  .  .  .  We 
take  it  upon  ourselves  fearlessly  to  affirm  that 
there  is  not  a  night  on  which  this  [Covent  Gar- 
den] or  any  of  our  theatres  are  open,  when  the 
managers  are  not  liable  to  an  indictment  for 
keeping  a  disorderly  house,  under  its  most  usual 
acceptation,  viz.,  a  brothel ;  and  that  of  the  most 
loathsome,  mischievous,  corrupt,  and  disgusting 
description."  ^ 

Admitting  the  triviality  of  some  of  the  charges 
brought  against  the  patentees,  such  as  the  en- 
gagement of  a  foreign  singer,  "  the  pensioned 
hireling  of  Buonaparte  "  (an  allusion  to  Cata- 
lini),  the  alleged  abuse  of  monopoly  privileges 

1  Sunday  Advertiser,  October  29,  1809 ;  quoted  in  Covent 
Garden  Journal. 

^  Cobbett,  in  a  strained  efFort  to  be  liberal,  denied  that  the 
private  boxes  increased  immorality,  evidently  overlooking  the 
main  point,  the  effect  on  the  decent  part  of  the  audience. 
Covent  Garden  Journal,  ii,  707;  Preface,  24,  25. 


A  THIRD   THEATRE   ATTEMPTED        189 

of  a  more  serious  nature  demanded  a  thorough 
examination  of  the  whole  question  of  theatrical 
patents.  Lord  Dartmouth  was  appealed  to  in  an 
open  letter  to  exercise  his  power,  as  Lord  Cham- 
berlain, to  put  a  stop  to  the  shameful  conduct  of 
the  theatre.^  But  his  lordship  was  too  wise  to 
meddle  with  a  quarrel  which  was  bound  to  take 
its  course  anyhow.  Threats  of  petitioning  Par- 
liament for  leave  to  erect  a  new  theatre  in  the 
metropolis  were  advertised  in  the  "  Times,"  No- 
vember 2,  1809.  Plans  for  a  new  third  theatre 
were  submitted  to  the  public,  containing  various 
schemes  for  obviating  the  evils  inherent  in  the 
patent  houses. 

"Service  to  the  public,"  became  the  shibbo- 
leth of  the  opposers  to  the  patentees.  The  new 
theatre,  when  built,  should  hold  by  the  legiti- 
mate drama.  Therefore,  the  structure  must  be 
small,  with  the  idea  of  private  gain  wholly 
secondary.  To  avoid  all  difficulties  growing  out 
of  monopoly  in  perpetuity,  the  patent  for  the 
new  national  theatre  should  be  issued  for  not 
longer  than  seven  years,  and  be  revocable  for 
cause.  To  lessen  the  danger  from  conflagrations 
the  theatre  should  be  built  of  stone.  The  air 
was  suddenly  filled  with  schemes  for  a  third 
theatre.    Elaborate  plans  for  a  subscription  the- 

^  Times,  November  7,  1809 ;  Sunday  Advertiser,  October  29, 
1809  ;  quoted  in  Covent  Garden  Journal,  ii,  60S,   657. 


190  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

atre  were  published  broadcast ;  others  conceived 
the  idea  of  a  joint-stock  company ;  while  others 
still,  apprehending  the  difficulty  which  was  sure 
to  arise  respecting  the  patents,  proposed  that 
"  the  government  make  a  liberal  purchase  of  the 
patents  originally  granted  for  the  accommodation 
of  a  population  small  comparatively  with  the 
present."  ^ 

But  there  was  a  prior  claim  to  all  these  to  the 
conception  of  a  third  London  theatre.  While 
the  rabble  was  howling  itself  hoarse  in  the  "  O. 
P."  riots,  while  the  public  and  the  managers 
of  Covent  Garden  were  hurling  invectives  and 
recrimination  at  each  other,  and  the  papers  were 
filled  with  accounts  of  the  uproar  and  the  in- 
scriptions on  the  placards  at  Covent  Garden, 
a  company  of  London  gentlemen  were  quietly 
formulating  a  plan  for  the  erection  of  a  third 
winter  theatre.  Even  before  the  opening  of  the 
Covent  Garden  Theatre,  and  the  "  O.  P."  riots, 
they  had  seen  that  the  time  had  come  for  an  at- 
tempt to  oppose  the  monopoly  with  another  stage 
for  the  regular  drama.  By  the  middle  of  Sep- 
tember, 1809,  these  gentlemen  had  already  had 
two  meetings  on  the  subject,  and  it  had  been 
given  out  that  they  intended  to  erect  a  theatre 

^  For  these  various  proposals,  see  The  Times,  Oct.  30,  Nov. 
2, 1809 ;  Frederick  Howard,  Thoughts  upon  the  Present  Condition 
of  the  Stage,  Appendix ;  Morning  Chronicle,  Oct.  7,  Nov.  8, 1809 ; 
Considerations  on  the  Fast  and  Present  State  of  the  Stage. 


A  THIRD  THEATRE  ATTEMPTED       191 

in  the  East  End  of  the  city.  It  was  also  reported 
that  they  were  drawing  up  a  petition  to  the 
Crown  to  grant  them  a  license  for  the  purpose  ; 
and  that  they  had  pledged  themselves  to  the 
amount  of  ,£250,000  towards  carrying  the  under- 
taking into  effect. 

It  was  understood  that  the  petitioners  would 
base  their  prayer  on  the  plea  that  all  monopolies 
are  injurious  and  prevent  that  fair  competition 
by  which  the  public  are  benefited.  The  evils 
arising  from  the  theatrical  monopoly  were  aggra- 
vated by  the  fact  that  London  had  increased 
three  fourths  in  extent  and  population  since  the 
creation  of  the  monopoly  by  Charles  II,  so  that 
many  were  deprived  of  the  pleasure  of  the  acted 
drama,  on  account  of  the  distance  to  the  estab- 
lished winter  theatres.  The  proposed  new  the- 
atre was  intended  to  relieve  this  emergency. 
One  rumor  had  the  site  of  the  new  building  in 
Fleet  Street,  and  it  was  to  be  a  model  of  beauty 
and  convenience.  It  was  also  noised  about  that 
the  petition  would  contain  an  offer  to  fix  a  price 
for  admission  the  same  as  that  at  the  Haymar- 
ket,  box,  4s.,  pit,  2s.  6d.,  gallery.  Is.  6d.,  which 
should  not  be  altered  under  penalty  of  forfeit- 
ing the  license.  It  was  proposed  to  call  the  new 
playhouse  The  London  Theatre  Royal. ^ 

Some  of  the  rumors  relating  to  the  plans  of 
1  Sunday  Examiner,  September  17,  1809. 


192  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

the  London  gentlemen  referred  to  were,  doubt- 
less, unfounded,  or  wholly  false.  But  the  essen- 
tial part  of  the  report  was  true,  namely,  that 
a  petition  for  a  third  theatre  was  in  preparation. 
This  petition  was  signed  by  fifteen  gentlemen, 
including  the  Lord  Mayor  of  London  (Thomas 
Smith),  five  members  of  Parliament,  and  Rich- 
ard Cumberland,  the  dramatist.  It  was  ad- 
dressed to  the  King,  and  prayed  for  a  charter- 
grant  to  establish  a  theatre  for  representing 
the  regular  drama.  It  averred  that  the  peti- 
tioners had  agreed  to  subscribe  £200,000  for  that 
purpose.  The  reason  they  gave  for  such  a  pro- 
ject was  that  the  increased  population  of  London 
and  Westminster  made  another  theatre  desirable 
and  expedient.* 

The  subject  of  the  theatrical  monopoly,  which 
had  its  origin  in  the  Crown,  had  run  its  cycle  and 
was  once  more  back  to  the  Crown.  But  that 
which  had  been  created  by  the  Merrie  Monarch 
without  a  moment's  hesitation  was  too  weighty 
a  problem  for  His  Majesty,  in  1810,  to  solve  off- 

1  Proceedings  before  the  Privy  Council,  1810,  Appendix  A. 
The  Historical  MSS.  Commission  make  note  of  the  petition 
of  the  Lord  Mayor  of  London,  and  other  gentlemen,  for  a 
Third  Theatre,  and  have  marked  it,  "  n.  d.,"  evidently  knowing 
nothing  of  the  Proceedings  before  the  Privy  Council  for  the 
consideration  of  the  aforesaid  petition,  or  of  the  time  when 
the  petition  was  made.  See  Historical  MSS.  Com.,  Report 
XIII S  p.  503,  1892. 


A  THIRD   THEATRE   ATTEMPTED        193 

hand.  The  King  in  Council,  therefore,  referred 
the  petition  to  his  Attorney  and  Solicitor- 
General  for  legal  opinion  in  the  matter,  who 
advised  against  the  grant,  on  the  grounds,  first, 
that  such  an  incorporated  charter  as  that  prayed 
for  would  give  to  the  corporation  so  constituted 
an  advantage  over  all  other  theatres  in  the 
metropolis  ;  and  secondly,  that  "  future  creditors 
of  such  a  theatre  would  be  abridged  of  their 
legal  remedies  for  the  recovery  of  debts." 

At  the  time  of  petitioning  the  King,  a  similar 
memorial  was  sent  to  the  House  of  Commons, 
asking  leave  to  bring  in  a  bill  for  the  jjurpose 
of  erecting  a  third  theatre  in  London,  should 
His  Majesty  give  his  consent.  After  the  Attorney 
and  Solicitor-General  rendered  an  adverse  opin- 
ion to  the  scheme,  the  memorialists  at  once 
prayed  for  a  hearing  before  the  Privy  Council. 
The  date  appointed  for  the  Council  proceedings 
was  the  16th  of  March,  1810,  and,  until  after 
this  important  event,  it  was  useless  to  prepare 
a  bill  to  be  brought  before  Parliament.  On  the 
19th,  therefore,  the  House  of  Commons  was 
petitioned  by  the  promoters  of  the  third  theatre 
plan,  for  an  extension  of  time  for  bringing  in 
private  bills.* 

Sheridan  strongly  opposed  granting  the  ex- 

1  For  these  petitions  see  Proceedings  be/ore  Privy  Council, 
1810,  Appendix  B,  C,  P. 


194  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

tension  of  time  (three  weeks)  asked  for  by  the 
petitioners.  He  thought  the  application  most 
extraordinary.  A  committee  "  above  stairs  "  had 
been  appointed  to  hear  the  memorialists  for  a 
third  theatre,  yet  the  latter,  declared  the  adroit 
Drury  Lane  manager,  "had  not  dared  to  come 
before  that  committee  since  the  8th  of  February." 
At  the  last  hour  they  had  come  in  praying  for 
time.  The  whole  business  seemed  to  Sheridan 
"  a  tissue  of  finesse  and  insincerity."  The  appeal 
to  the  Privy  Council,  after  the  Attorney  and 
Solicitor-General  had  rendered  an  opinion  ad- 
verse to  a  third  theatre  scheme,  and,  at  the  same 
time,  the  application  to  the  House  for  an  exten- 
sion of  time,  proved  that  the  petitioners  wanted 
two  strings  to  their  bow.  In  the  petition  to  the 
Privy  Council  the  "  Lord  Mayor  of  London  "  ap- 
peared ;  in  that  to  the  House  of  Commons  it  was 
plain  "  Thomas  Smith."  Sheridan  denounced 
this  as  artifice.  He  then  appealed  to  the  House 
to  keep  in  mind  the  sacredness  of  vested  pro- 
perty rights  and  the  inviolableness  of  patents ; 
but  no  attempt  was  made  by  the  patentee  at  this 
time  to  defend  the  principle  of  monopoly.  The 
temper  of  the  House,  however,  was  on  this  occa- 
sion at  variance  with  the  Drury  Lane  representa- 
tive ;  for,  after  a  brief  debate,  the  application  of 
the  third  theatre  promoters  was  granted  for  an 
extension  of  time  to  brins:  in  their  bill. 


A   THIRD   THEATRE   ATTEMPTED       195 

Meantime  the  Privy  Council  had  had  its  first 
sitting  on  the  petition  of  the  Lord  Mayor  and 
others  interested  in  the  third  theatre  movement, 
praying  to  be  heard  against  the  Attorney  and 
Solicitor-General's  objection  to  the  incorporation 
plan,  and  asking  leave  to  suggest  means  by 
which  creditors  would  always  be  safe  from  loss 
incurred  by  the  theatre's  indebtedness.  These 
were  the  specific  points  for  consideration  before 
the  Privy  Council.  But  it  was  clear  to  every 
one  concerned  that  the  hearing  was  to  be  in 
reality  an  examination  of  the  whole  question  of 
the  patents  granted  by  Charles  II,  and  the  claim 
of  the  patentees  to  a  "legal  monopoly."  This 
was  to  be  the  battle  royal  for  a  free  stage,  and 
the  most  careful  preparation  was  made  by  both 
sides ;  on  the  one  hand,  for  an  attack  on  all  the 
weak  points  of  patent  rights,  on  the  other,  for 
a  defense  of  individual,  vested,  property  rights, 
based  on  a  faith  in  the  inviolableness  of  patent 
privileges. 

For  the  purpose  of  hearing  the  champions  of 
these  diverse  causes,  the  Lords  of  the  Council  met 
on  the  16th  of  March,  1810.  This  august  body 
consisted  of  the  Lord  President  (Earl  Camden), 
Earl  of  Aylesford,  Earl  Harrowby,  Lord  John 
Thynne,  the  Master  of  the  Rolls  (Sir  William 
Grant),  Sir  William  Scott,  Mr.  John  Trevor, 
and  the  invincible  Sheridan.    The  petition  of 


196    THE   STRUGGLE   FOR  A   FREE   STAGE 

the  Lord  Mayor  and  others  was  read.  At  the 
same  time  numerous  counter-petitions  were  pre- 
sented, praying  that  the  first  petition  be  rejected. 
The  proprietors  and  shareholders  in  Drury  Lane 
and  Covent  Garden  manifested  the  greatest 
alarm  at  the  petition  for  a  third  theatre,  and 
memorialized  the  King  in  Council,  showing  how 
destructive  to  their  interests  a  third  winter  the- 
atre would  prove.  Their  legal  arguments  against 
a  rival  were  founded  on  the  grants  of  Charles  II, 
which,  they  claimed,  gave  to  Killigrew  and  Dav- 
enant  the  exclusive  right  to  erect  two  theatres, 
and  on  the  suppression  and  silencing  of  all  other 
theatres  in  London  at  the  time  the  patents  were 
issued ;  for  this  was  construed  by  the  patentees 
as  creating  a  perpetual  monopoly  to  the  "  heirs, 
executors,  and  assigns"  of  the  original  grantees. 
As  counsel  for  the  third  theatre  advocates,  Mr. 
Warren  appeared  .to  answer  these  claims,  as  well 
as  the  other  counter-petitions  and  the  Attorney 
and  Solicitor-General.^ 

Counsel  for  the  petitioners  gathered  his  argu- 
ments about  two  main  topics,  viz.,  the  nature  of 
crown  prerogative,  and  the  desirability  of  a  third 

^  A  full  account  of  the  Privy  Council  proceedings  on  the  Peti- 
tion for  a  Third  Theatre  (March  16,  19,  26, 1810)  was  pub- 
lished in  pamphlet  form  at  the  time,  together  with  copies  of 
all  the  counter-petitions.  This  Report  is  the  source  of  my  ac- 
count in  this  chapter.  See,  also,  London  Chronicle,  March  17,  20, 
1810. 


A   THIRD   THEATRE   ATTEMPTED       197 

winter  theatre  in  London.  On  the  first  of  these 
heads  it  was  contended  that,  if  it  were  the  pre- 
rosative  of  the  Crown  which  made  the  theatrical 
patents  valid,  then  the  prerogative  must  have 
belonged  to  Charles  II  as  King,  and  not  as  an 
individual.  If  the  latter  alternative  were  true, 
the  flimsiness  of  the  monopoly  claim  appears  at 
once ;  and  if  the  former  interpretation  be  the 
correct  one,  the  power  of  succeeding  kings 
to  grant  patents  must  be  conceded.  In  other 
words  the  prerogative  of  a  King  is  temporary, 
that  of  the  Crown  perpetual,  or  until  altered  by 
act  of  Parliament.  The  true  meaning  intended 
by  the  clause  in  the  patents  giving  "  full  power 
and  authority  "  to  certain  individuals,  their  heirs, 
etc.,  and  for  the  suppression  of  all  other  persons 
acting  plays  without  authority,  is  simply  that 
none  shall  act  without  authority,  and  it  does  not 
establish  a  monopoly.  That  this  was  the  con- 
struction placed  by  succeeding  monarchs  on  the 
clause  in  the  patents  referred  to,  attention  was 
called  to  Steele's  patent  (January  19,  1714), 
to  the  one  granted  to  Foote,  and  to  the  Opera, 
and  Lyceum.^  So,  also,  did  the  Crown  issue  a 
license  to  Wilks,  Cibber,  and  Booth  (July  3, 

1  S.  J.  Arnold  was  panted  a  license  in  1809  for  Eng'lish 
opera  at  the  Lyceum.  A  consideration  of  this  theatre  will  be 
taken  up  in  a  succeeding  chapter.  The  Opera,  mentioned  in 
Warren's  speech,  refers  to  Vanbrugh's  house  in  the  Haymar- 
ket. 


198  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

1732),  another  to  Lacy  and  Garrick  (June  24, 
1747),  which  was  renewed  (October  26,  1762), 
and  to  Sheridan,  Linley,  and  Ford,  all  for  the 
like  period  of  twenty-one  years. 

From  these  numerous  instances,  the  conclusion 
was  deduced  that  there  was  no  restriction  on 
succeeding  kings  arising  from  anything  contained 
in  the  original  patents.  As  a  further  evidence  in 
support  of  this  position,  citation  was  made  of  that 
provision  in  the  Licensing  Act  (art.  v),  wherein 
"  no  person  or  persons  shall  be  authorized  by 
virtue  of  any  Letters  Patent  from  His  Majesty, 
...  or  by  the  licence  of  the  Lord  Chamberlain," 
to  act  anywhere  in  Great  Britain,  except  in  Lon- 
don and  Westminster,  as  clearly  implying  the 
power  of  the  Lord  Chamberlain  to  issue  licenses, 
and  of  the  Crown  to  issue  patents.^  Otherwise  the 
clause  itself  would  be  nugatory.  But  the  refer- 
ence to  this  clause  in  the  Licensing  Act  required 
a  consideration  of  the  differences  between  a  patent 
and  a  license.  Warren  held  that  there  was  no 
difference,  so  far  as  the  monopol}^  was  concerned ; 
for  both  were  infringements  on  the  exclusive 
privileges  claimed  for  the  patents  by  the  patentees. 
That  the  monopoly  might  be  broken,  and  that 
for  such  an  object  a  license  was  as  effectual  as 
a  patent,  the  Little  Theatre  in  the  Haymarket,  the 
Opera  House  in  the  Haymarket,  and  the  Lyceum, 

*  Cf.  Statutes  at  Large,  10  George  II,  cap.  xxviii,  art.  v. 


A  THIRD  THEATRE   ATTEMPTED       199 

were  instanced.  For,  since  the  two  original 
patents  specified  no  particular  time  of  tlie  year 
for  acting,  their  privileges  extended  to  all  sea- 
sons, and  the  existence  (by  virtue  of  license  or 
patent)  of  any  other  theatre  for  summer,  spring, 
or  winter  was  incontrovertible  evidence  that  the 
grants  of  Charles  II  to  Killigrew  and  Davenant 
did  not  create  a  monopoly  in  perpetuity,  and 
that  a  license  was  as  effectual  as  a  patent. 

Having,  as  he  was  convinced,  answered  the 
argument  that  the  original  theatrical  patents 
created  a  perpetual  monopoly,  the  leading  counsel 
for  the  third  theatre  petitioners  attempted  to 
show  cause  why  a  third  establishment  for  the 
regular  drama  was  desirable.  The  counter-pe- 
titions from  Drury  Lane  and  Covent  Garden  had 
given  as  reasons  why  such  a  concern  should  not 
be  chartered,  the  inviolable  security  of  the 
patents  themselves ,  the  expense  incurred  in 
building  and  ornamenting  the  new  Covent  Gar- 
den Theatre  ;  and  the  jeopardy  in  which  a  third 
theatre  would  place  the  creditors  of  the  patent 
theatre.  As  to  the  objection  current  that  the 
new  Covent  Garden  Theatre  was  too  large,  the 
patentees  answered  that  the  theatre  had  been  so 
constructed  to  meet  the  accommodation  of  an 
increasing  population.*    This  was  a  weak  point 

1  The  population  of  London  in  1810  was  about  one  million, 
or  about  double  that  of  the  time  of  Charles  II. 


200  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

in  the  armor  of  the  patentees  which  had  been 
frequently  sought  by  the  public.  Carried  to  its 
logical  conclusion,  it  meant  that  whatever  the 
increase  in  the  population,  the  capacity  of  the 
patent  theatres  could  be  enlarged  in  proportion. 
The  contention  was  manifestly  absurd.  "  They 
do  not  advert  to  this  circumstance,"  retorted 
Warren,  "that  they  may  enlarge  them  to  such 
a  degree  that  many  of  the  persons  present  can 
neither  see  nor  hear."  The  Drury  Lane  peti- 
tioners had  said  that  "  the  average  nightly 
receipts  of  the  Theatre  of  Drury  Lane,  and  they 
believe  also  of  Covent  Garden,  for  a  series  of 
years,  fully  prove  that  the  persons  resorting 
thereto,  have  not  amounted  to  more  than  one- 
half  of  the  number  those  Theatres  were  capable 
of  containing,  .  .  ."  From  which  assertion  it 
was  intended  to  prove  that  a  third  theatre  was 
not  expedient.  The  reply  to  this  was,  that  the 
patent  theatres  were  too  large,  the  public  stayed 
away  because  they  could  not  be  commodiously 
seated.  "  How  does  it  happen  that  Covent  Gar- 
den is  not  full,  now  that  Drury  Lane  is  not  in 
existence  ?  "  The  answer,  it  was  maintained  with 
confidence,  was  the  strongest  plea  for  a  third 
theatre.  The  large  theatres  were  empty  because 
of  their  size,  and  it  was  to  correct  this  lack  of 
theatrical  accommodation  for  the  public  that  the 
petitioners  were  before  the  Privy  Council. 


A   THIRD   THEATRE   ATTEMPTED       201 

The  Covent  Garden  counter-petition  had  inti- 
mated that  the  project  for  a  third  theatre  was  a 
result  of  the  recent  calamity  to  Drury  Lane,  and 
that  the  promoters  of  the  scheme  were  in  hopes 
that,  if  their  petition  were  granted,  it  would 
deter  the  proprietors  of  Drury  Lane  from  re- 
building. To  this  insinuation  Warren  answered 
for  his  clients  that  it  was  their  intention  to  peti- 
tion for  a  third  theatre,  irrespective  of  the  plans 
and  prospects  of  Drury  Lane.  They  had  no 
other  thought  but  that  Drury  Lane  would  be  re- 
built. Coming  to  the  objections  of  the  Attorney 
and  Solicitor-General,  that  a  charter  of  incor- 
poration for  a  theatre,  such  as  that  applied  for 
by  the  petitioners,  would  secure  to  the  latter  an 
advantage  over  the  other  theatres,  by  removing 
personal  responsibilities  for  the  (possible)  liabil- 
ities of  the  corporation,  Warren  answered,  that 
to  relieve  all  doubts  on  this  point,  the  projectors 
of  a  third  theatre  were  ready  to  place  in  the 
hands  of  trustees  a  stipulated  sum,  say  £40,000 
or  £50,000,  over  which  they  were  willing  to 
surrender  all  control,  to  meet  the  emergencies 
apprehended  by  the  King's  lawyer.  It  was  con- 
tended by  the  advocate  for  the  third  theatre 
party  that  a  corporation  was  far  more  stable  than 
individual  ownership  in  property ;  certainly  the 
patent  houses  could  not  be  held  up  as  a  proof  to 
the  contrary.    It  was  denied  that  advantage  was 


202  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

sought  over  the  other  theatres  by  the  charter 
prayed  for ;  the  petitioners  had  the  single  desire 
of  serving  the  public  in  the  way  of  dramatic  en- 
tertainment. "We  are  willing,"  said  their  coun- 
sel, "  to  take  the  Charter  limited  in  any  way  that 
His  Majesty's  advisers  may  think  proper.  We 
shall  consent  to  put  ourselves  under  any  restraint 
that  will  enable  us  to  represent  moral  amuse- 
ments to  the  Public." 

Curwood  assisted  Warren  in  defending  the 
cause  of  a  third  theatre.  After  repudiating 
Sheridan's  insinuations  *that  the  petitioners  for 
a  new  theatre  had  brought  their  case  before  the 
Privy  Council  in  a  surreptitious  manner,  hoping 
to  get  His  Majesty's  consent  before  the  House 
of  Commons  could  oppose  the  measure  in  Parlia^ 
ment,  Curwood  went  straight  to  the  essentials  of 
the  theatrical  controversy.  He  flatly  denied  that 
entertainments  could  be  controlled  by  crown 
prerogative.  If  they  could,  then  such  authority 
had  existed  from  time  beyond  memory  —  which 
was  contrary  to  historic  fact. 

But  the  core  of  the  problem  was  probed  when 
the  legality  of  the  theatrical  monopoly  was  ex- 
amined. It  was  admitted  by  Curwood  that  long 
after  the  time  when  monopolies  were  held  to  be 
void,  a  distinction  was  made  between  mouopolies 
of  trade  and  those  of  amusement.  Attention 
was  called  to  the  case  arising  in  the  forty-fourth 


A   THIRD   THEATRE   ATTEMPTED       203 

year  of  Elizabeth's  reign  (reported  by  Sir  E. 
Coke,  vol.  77),  in  which  the  monopoly  of  the 
traffic  in  playing-cards  (granted  to  Ralph  Bowes 
in  30  Elizabeth,  and  renewed  in  42  Elizabeth) 
was  declared  null,  thus  overruling  the  distinc- 
tion previously  made  between  exclusive  privi- 
leges in  trade  and  in  amusements.  The  sequel 
to  this  case  may  be  traced  to  the  Statute  of 
Monopolies  in  the  reign  of  James  I.  From  this 
it  was  argued  that  the  patents  granted  to  Killi- 
grew  and  Davenant  were  void  ab  initio. 

This  review  of  monopolistic  legislation  was 
the  more  necessary  as  the  counter-petition  of 
Sarah  Richardson,  owner  of  one  fourth  interest 
in  Drury  Lane  Theatre,  expressly  laid  claim 
to  the  exclusive  privilege  of  Drury  Lane  and 
Covent  Garden  to  represent  plays  and  other 
theatrical  performances.  And  here  it  is  worthy  of 
note  that  the  counter-petitions  from  Drury  Lane 
and  Covent  Garden  assumed  no  right  to  a  mo- 
nopoly based  on  the  patents,  while  the  represent- 
atives of  Covent  Garden  distinctly  denied  any 
such  pretension,  emphasizing,  however,  the  right 
of  "long-established  custom"  which  the  two  the- 
atres had  enjoyed  to  act  plays  in  the  winter  and 
spring.  On  this  point  Curwood  drew  the  dis- 
tinction between  a  patent  of  favor  and  a  patent 
of  right,  adding  that  the  counter-petitioners  had 
evidently  mistaken   the  former   for  the  latter; 


204  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

but  that  in  either  case  an  abuse  of  the  patent 
worked  its  forfeiture. 

Adverting  to  the  Attorney  and  Solicitor-Gen- 
eral's fears  that  a  charter  of  incorporation  would 
render  the  security  of  future  creditors  unstable, 
Curwood  added  a  point  to  that  made  by  his  col- 
league. He  explained  that  the  corporation  peti- 
tioned for  was  unlike  commercial,  insurance,  and 
such-like  corporations,  in  that,  from  the  outset, 
the  theatre  corporation  would  have  ,£200,000 
visible,  either  in  funds  or  in  property,  in  addition 
to  the  accumulating  fuAd  which  they  proposed 
to  set  aside  to  secure  their  creditors.  What  bet- 
ter security  had  the  patent  houses  to  offer  than 
this  ?  it  was  asked.  Sheridan  had  said  in  his  pe- 
tition that  the  renters  (i.  e.,  stockholders)  *  of 
Dury  Lane  were  liable  for  all  security  to  cred- 
itors ;  but  he  had  neglected  to  state  that  the 
renters  were  the  chief  creditors.  Wherein  lay 
the  security  to  the  smaller  creditors? 

Curwood  also  dwelt  on  the  size  of   the  patent 

1  Although  stockholders,  the  "  renters  "  of  Drury  Lane  par- 
took of  no  share  in  the  profits  of  the  concern.  They  had  free 
admissions  to  the  theatre,  and  received  the  legal  rate  of  interest 
on  their  subscriptions ;  but  were  individually  responsible  to 
the  extent  of  their  private  fortunes  for  the  indebtedness  of  the 
theatre.  On  the  other  hand,  the  members  of  the  proposed 
third  theatre  corporation  would  be  liable  only  for  their  sub- 
scriptions. Herein  lay  the  advantage  pointed  out  by  the  Attor- 
ney and  Solicitor-General. 


A   THIRD   THEATRE   ATTEMPTED       205 

houses :  "  The  great  size  of  the  theatres  entirely 
defeats  the  object  of  the  Drama,  and  looking 
down  from  the  height  of  the  vast  concave,  the 
Actors  appear  like  the  inhabitants  of  Lilliput 
parading  the  great  hall  of  the  imperial  palace  of 
Brobdingnag.  Not  a  feature  of  the  face  can 
be  distinguished,  far  less  the  variations  and  flex- 
ibility of  muscles,  the  turn  of  the  eye  and  grace- 
ful action,  which,  in  an  accomplished  Actor,  gives 
life  and  energy  to  the  composition  of  an  eloquent 
Author."  The  saloons  and  lobbies,  the  dens  of 
immorality  at  the  patent  houses,  were  also  con- 
demned. 

The  arguments  of  Mr.  Adam,  the  first  of  the 
counsel  representing  the  patentees  to  speak,  were 
made  up  largely  of  apologies,  avowals,  and  denials, 
and  were  hardly  calculated  to  defend  his  clients' 
cause.  Some  of  the  points,  however,  ai'e  worthy 
of  notice.  As  to  the  question  of  exclusive  priv- 
ileges enjoyed  by  the  two  patent  houses,  the 
integrity  of  these,  he  said,  should  be  respected, 
because,  for  a  vast  period,  the  proprietors  of 
these  theatres  "  had  been  acting  upon  the  faith  of 
reasonable  expectation,  which  forms  as  it  were 
the  equitable  principle  of  the  equitable  code  of 
any  country."  The  history  and  the  law  involved 
in  the  case  fell  outside  of  Mr.  Adam's  province ; 
he  was  content  to  base  his  claims  on  the  state- 
ments of  the  counter-petitions.     He  denied  that 


206  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

the  theatre -going  public  had  increased  in  direct 
proportion  to  the  population,  and  to  support 
this  denial  the  change  in  the  business  habits  of 
the  town  was  alluded  to.  The  new  system 
of  carrying  the  mails  had  altered  the  business 
hours  of  the  merchants,  and,  as  a  result,  fewer 
people  attended  the  theatres,  in  proportion  to 
the  population,  than  formerly.  Prior  to  1810 
much  of  the  business  of  the  metropolis  was  trans- 
acted in  the  evening  after  an  early  dinner. 
At  the  time  of  the  third  theatre  project  many 
commercial  men  remained  at  their  counting- 
houses  until  seven  o'clock  to  answer  their  letters 
within  post  hours.  By  the  time  they  could  re- 
gale themselves  it  was  too  late  to  go  to  the 
theatre.  "  Thousands  of  other .  .  .  manners  and 
customs  of  the  people  "  also  entered  into  the  prob- 
lem, declared  Mr.  Adam. 

The  "  deplorable  and  unfortunate  situation  of 
Drury  Lane  "  and  its  effects  upon  "  the  widow  and 
fatherless  "  was  presented  to  the  Council's  con- 
sideration. So,  too,  the  interests  of  Mr.  Harris, 
and  "a  gentleman  high  in  the  public  esteem  as 
an  actor,"  ^  were  matters  not  to  be  lost  sight  of. 
A  joint-stock  company  was  a  terrible  thing  to 
contemplate,  said  Mr.  Adam,  for  it  was  sure  to 
grow  into  a  monopoly  ( a  privilege  for  which  the 

^  Alluding  to  Kemble,  who  was  a  shareholder  in,  and  man- 
ager of,  Covent  Garden. 


A   THIRD   THEATRE   ATTEMPTED       207 

patent  houses  were  not  contending),  the  greatest 
clanger  of  which  would  lie  in  the  very  safeguard 
which  the  promoters  proposed  to  establish  to  se- 
cure the  creditors  of  the  concern.  Because,  as 
the  theatre  grew  in  power,  this  fund  would  neces- 
sarily increase  proportionately  and  get  so  large 
at  last  as  to  endanger  the  creditors  for  whose 
preservation  it  was  created. 

At  the  close  of  Adam's  speech,  which  his  coad- 
jutor dignified  with  the  epithet  "  impressive,"  the 
Council  proceedings  adjourned  until  the  follow- 
ing Monday,  the  nineteenth  of  March.  Immedi- 
ately on  convening  the  second  sitting,  the  mem- 
bers were  addressed  by  Mr.  Randle  Jackson, 
counsel  for  the  trustees  of  Drury  Lane  Theatre. 
If  the  effort  of  Mr.  Adam  had  been  feeble,  the 
like  may  not  be  said  of  the  arguments  delivered 
by  Jackson.  For  eloquence  and  persuasion,  for 
method  and  coherency,  and,  above  all,  for  subtle 
reasoning  and  a  knowledge  of  legal  authority, 
his  speech  was  among  the  most  effective  before 
the  Privy  Council  on  this  occasion.  A  few  times, 
in  the  course  of  his  address,  Jackson  pressed  the 
sympathies  of  the  Council  harder  than  was  need- 
ful, as  when  he  referred  to  Mrs.  Richardson  and 
her  "  four  amiable  and  interesting  daughters  "  as 
having  no  other  protection  than  "  Heaven  and 
your  Lordships  ;  "  and  again,  when  speaking  of 
the  actors  and  actresses  of  the  burnt  Drury  Lane 


208  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

Theatre  as  the  "  sons  and  daughters  of  Misfor- 
tune, these  objects  at  once  of  admiration  and  sym- 
pathy, of  merit  and  disaster."  But  these  appeals 
never  sank  into  the  maudlin  or  ludicrous.  And 
when  ridicule  was  employed  against  the  argu- 
ments of  his  opponents,  the  manner  was  always 
so  genial  and  manly  that  it  attracted  rather  than 
repelled. 

For  the  most  part,  Jackson  employed  his 
time  answering  argument,  and  so  masterfully 
was  this  done  that,  often,  the  weaknesses  of  his 
own  side  were  turned  to  his  advantage.  The 
points  made  by  the  opposing  counsel  were  an- 
swered in  order.  As  to  the  opinion  that  the 
patents  to  Killigrew  and  Davenant  were  monop- 
olies, and,  hence,  were  void  ab  initio^  Jackson 
denied  the  premise,  supporting  his  position  on, 
first,  Blackstone's  definition  of  a  monopoly,  viz., 
"  a  licence  or  privilege  allowed  by  the  King  for 
the  sole  buying  and  selling,  making,  working,  or 
using  of  anything  whatsoever,  whereby  the  sub- 
ject in  general  is  restrained  from  that  liberty  of 
manufacturing  or  trading  which  he  had  before;  " 
and,  secondly,  the  interpretation  which  should, 
as  he  saw  it,  be  placed  on  the  decision  in  the 
playing-card  case,  already  referred  to.  The 
patent  involved  in  that  case,  Jackson  maintained, 
was  for  trade  and  traffic,  and  the  decision  against 
it  had  no  reference  to  the  amusement  of  card- 


A  THIRD  THEATRE  ATTEMPTED       209 

playing ;  the  crown  prerogative,  as  regards 
amusements,  remained  unlimited  by  the  findings 
in  that  case.  Resorting  to  a  doubtful  quibble 
and  relying  on  the  definition  of  monopoly  given 
above,  Jackson  impressed  the  point  that  the 
Drury  Lane  patent  did  not  grant  a  sole  privi- 
lege, and  hence  could  not  be  adjudged  a  mo- 
nopoly ;  for  the  creation  of  a  rival  patent  at  the 
same  time  put  it  beyond  the  power  of  Drury 
Lane  to  exercise  an  exclusive  privilege.  To  the 
assertion  that  Charles  II  had  no  right  to  bind 
his  successors,  the  case  of  Steele  was  raised  in 
answer,  in  which  it  had  been  decided  in  favor  of 
such  right.  "  What  is  it  then  we  contend  for," 
concluded  Jackson  on  this  part  of  the  subject, 
"  but  that  ...  we  still  retain  the  exclusive 
right  therein  conveyed,  of  being  one  of  two 
houses,  and  that  we  must  retain  that  right,  until 
it  shall  be  shown  by  due  course  of  law  that 
public  expediency  calls  for  a  third  Theatre,  or 
that  we  have  so  conducted  ourselves  as  to  de- 
serve the  suppression  of  our  own  ?  " 

Warren  had  put  forward  the  argument  that 
the  two  patents  had  ceased  to  be  valid  from 
the  circumstance  of  other  patents  and  licenses 
having  existed  subsequently.  Jackson  remarked 
that  it  was  worthy  of  mention  that  so  faith- 
fully had  the  spirit  of  those  patents  been  com- 
plied with   that  at  no   time  during  the  whole 


210  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

period  which  had  elapsed  since  they  were  granted 
had  there  been  more  than  two  regular  theatres 
open  at  the  same  time  ;  and  that  even  when 
both  patents  had  fallen  into  one  hand,  the  rule 
was  still  observed  as  to  the  coexistence  of  two 
houses,  no  thought  ever  having  occurred  of  con- 
solidating the  two  into  one  house,*  but  rather  to 
consider  them  as  safeguards  against  the  erection 
of  a  third  theatre.  It  was  shown  that  all  licenses 
subsequent  to  the  patents  had  been  of  a  tempo- 
rary and  conditional  nature,  and  not  opposed  to 
the  patent  houses.  Warren  was  corrected  as  to 
his  confusion  of  patent  and  license.  The  former, 
observed  Jackson,  was  to  be  distinguished  by  its 
having  "  the  sign  manual "  by  its  having  passed 
through  "  all  the  solemnities  of  office  ;  "  while 
a  license  is  the  "  mere  act  of  indulgence  of  the 
Lord  Chamberlain,  and  much  more  limited  in 
its  nature  and  extent."  Charters  had  often  been 
shown  to  be  "  sacred  things,"  and  on  this  long- 
established  sanctity  the  patentees  would  rest  the 
merits  of  their  case. 

The  charge  was  reiterated  that  the  petitioners 
for  a  third  theatre  had  seized  upon  the  critical 
moment  when  Drury  Lane  was  in  ashes,  in  the 

^  Whether  this  was  a  conscious  or  unconscious  mistake  I  do 
not  know.  The  history  of  the  theatre  was  not  very  well  known 
in  1810,  Gibber  and  Malone  being  the  chief  authorities  for 
those  desiring  to  learn  about  the  subject. 


A   THIRD   THEATRE   ATTEMPTED       211 

hopes  of  discouraging  the  subscription  for  the  re- 
building of  that  theatre,  and  Jackson  warned  the 
Council  that  if  they  granted  the  petitioners  their 
prayer  there  was  no  assurance  that  the  Drury 
Lane  subscription  would  succeed.  "  The  question 
is  not  the  building  of  a  third  theatre  ;  it  is 
whether  the  Lombard  Street  Petitioners  or  the 
Patrons  of  Old  Drury,  shall  build  a  second 
Theatre?  the  town  cannot  maintain  three  in  the 
same  neighborhood :  if  your  Lordships  exalt 
them,  we  must  become  prostrate  and  extinct, 
our  fate  will  be  sealed,  and  we  shall  sink  to  rise 
no  more."  And  their  Lordships  are  assured  by 
the  speaker  that  this  is  not  addressed  to  their 
"feelings  merely." 

All  of  the  arguments  presented  by  Adam  were 
strengthened  by  Jackson.  The  irresponsibility 
of  a  joint-stock  company  was  enforced  by  a 
reference  to  the  recent  example  of  the  Globe 
Insurance  Company,^  application  for  a  charter 
for  which  had  been  denied  on  the  very  grounds 
now  (1810)  raised  against  the  third  theatre 
advocates.  A  further  difficulty  attaching  to  the 
theatre  corporation  plan  was  discovered  by  Jack- 
son. The  penalty  provided  by  the  Licensing  Act 
for  the  offenses  therein  described  is  a  stipulated 
fine,  in  failure  of  which   the  person  of  the  of- 

1  This  was  in  1806.  See  Hansard's  Parliamentary  Debates, 
1st  Series,  for  1806,  passim . 


212  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

fender  must  answer.  It  was  suggested  that  the 
person  of  a  corporation  would  be  hard  to  de- 
fine.^ 

By  the  date  of  the  second  sitting  of  the  Coun- 
cil, on  the  petition  for  a  third  theatre,  a  numer- 
ous and  varied  list  of  counter-petitions  had  been 
sent  in.  Some  of  these  were  read  at  the  conclu- 
sion of  Jackson's  defense.  One  of  them  was 
from  Henry  Fulke  Greville,  Esquire,  the  opera 
enthusiast.  His  petition  on  this  occasion  laid 
claim  to  a  priority  of  right  in  the  matter  of 
establishing  a  third  theatre.  Greville  averred 
that  he  had,  in  1809,  prepared  a  plan  for  this 
purpose,  but  had  been  informed  that  he  could 
represent  only  operas  and  farces,  the  Lord  Cham- 
berlain "  not  thinking  it  for  the  present  just  or 
right  to  break  through  the  monopoly  of  the 
Patent  Theatres."  Upon  this,  he  (Greville)  had 
written  to  Mr.  Perceval,  "  praying  for  the  support 
of  His  Majesty's  Government  in  favor  of  a  bill 
he  intended  to  bring  into  Parliament,  for  leave 
to  act  under  a  Patent,  and  to  extend  the  nature 
of  the  Performances  at  the  New  Theatre  he  had 
already  the  authority  of  the  Lord  Chamberlain 
to  set  on  foot."  Perceval's  answer  to  this  request 
showed  that  gentleman's  opinion  on  the  subject 

^  Jackson  must  have  been  using  this  for  effect,  for  he  must 
have  known  that  the  actors  in  a  chartered  (corporate)  theatre 
could  not  be  prosecuted  under  the  Licensing  Act. 


A  THIRD  THEATRE  ATTEMPTED       213 

to  be  that  he  "  does  not  immediately  recollect 
how  far  the  King  can  or  cannot,  consistently 
with  existing  Patents,  grant  one  for  a  New 
Theatre,  but  he  conceives  if  the  King  cannot  do 
it  Parliament  could  not,  without  infringing  the 
rights  of  the  present  Patentees,  give  its  sanc- 
tion to  such  an  Establishment."  It  was  then 
too  late  for  Greville  to  bring  a  private  bill  into 
Parliament  (Perceval's  letter  is  dated  April  15, 
1809);  and  so  he  decided  to  exercise  the  au- 
thority already  possessed  for  musical  entertain- 
ments, as  he  felt  persuaded,  he  said,  that  when 
the  necessity  appeared  to  the  Lord  Chamber- 
lain for  permitting  an  unlimited  range  of  the 
drama,  such  privilege  would  be  annexed  to  his 
theatre. 

But  just  at  this  stage  of  the  Colonel's  plans, 
the  wily  Sheridan  interposed  his  influence  to  put 
a  stop  to  GreviJle's  operations.  He  made  over- 
tures to  Greville  for  a  coalition  of  theatrical 
interests,  and  at  the  same  time  promised  that 
when  the  necessity  for  a  third  winter  house  should 
appear,  he  would  give  not  only  the  sanction  of 
his  "dormant  patent,"  but  would  also  use  his 
"  best  endeavors  to  affix  the  third  Patent  at  your 
Petitioner's  new  projected  Theatre."  "In  conse- 
quence of  this  arrangement,"  continues  the  peti- 
tion, "  a  request  was  made  to  the  Lord  Cham- 
berlain for  a  Licence  to  perform  the  Drama  this 


214  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

Season  under  your  Petitioner's  Licence,  which 
has  been  done."  ' 

S.  J.  Arnold,  proprietor  of  the  Lyceum  The- 
atre, presented  a  companion  petition  to  Colonel 
Greville's,  in  which  he  prayed  for  a  joint  grant 
to  himself  and  Greville,  in  case  a  third  theatre 
were  deemed  advisable,  in  view  of  their  former 
petitions,  and  as  a  protection  to  investments 
already  made  by  them.  The  friendly  relations 
with  Drury  Lane  were  pointed  out,  for,  since  the 
burning  of  the  great  theatre,  "  your  petitioner 
has  been  the  means  of  keeping  together  the 
company  of  the  late  Theatre  Royal  Drury  Lane 
at  the  Lyceum  Theatre,  under  an  arrangement 
with  Mr.  Sheridan  and  Mr.  Greville."  Relative 
to  the  transaction  between  Sheridan  and  Gre- 
ville, referred  to  by  the  latter  in  his  petition  to 
the  Privy  Council,  the  following  letter  (dated 
August  17,  1809)  from  T.  B.  Mash,  deputy- 
Chamberlain,  to  Lord  Dartmouth,  is  significant 

^  The  same  year  in  which  Drury  Lane  Theatre  burned  (1809), 
Greville  secured  a  license  for  the  English  opera  in  the  ■winter, 
and  S.  J.  Arnold  a  similar  license  for  the  summer  season.  This 
■was  a  source  of  alarm  and  jealousy  to  Sheridan,  who  deter- 
mined to  nip  the  matter  in  the  bud.  Looking  about  for  quarters 
for  his  Drury  Lane  Company,  he  conceived  the  plan  of  flat- 
tering Arnold  and  Greville  with  a  proposal  of  coalition,  the 
three  managers  to  join  licenses  and  forces  at  the  Lyceum.  The 
ruse  was  successful,  the  Lyceum  opening  on  the  25th  of  Sep- 
tember, 1809,  under  the  triumvirate. — See  London  Chronicle, 
Sept.  26,  1809. 


A  THIRD  THEATRE  ATTEMPTED       215 

as  showing  the   motives  and  methods  of  Sheri- 
dan : 

"  It  has  been  intimated  to  me  that  a  very  cu- 
rious proposal  has  been  made  by  Mr.  Sheridan 
to  Mr.  Greville,  viz.,  that  he  should  relinquish 
such  a  paltry  protection  as  that  of  the  Lord 
Chamberlain's  licence,  which  according  to  Mr. 
Sheridan's  pretentions  will  avail  him  nothing 
when  opposed  by  the  Patentees,  as  they  shall 
certainly  crush  all  those  places  of  entertainment 
acting  under  such  authority,  and  that  therefore 
for  Mr.  Greville's  better  security  they  should, 
with  Taylor  and  his  son  Tom,  jointly  open  the 
Opera  House  for  four  nights  a  week  for  English 
operas  under  the  dormant  patent.  I  have  not 
seen  Col.  Greville  since,  but  on  the  morning 
(last  Thursday)  he  received  the  invitation  from 
Mr.  Sheridan  to  meet  him  at  Kelly's  the  come- 
dian, who  keeps  a  music  shop  in  Pall  Mall,  to 
dine  with  him  there,  he  told  me  that  if  anything 
particular  transpired  he  would  call  upon  me  the 
following  morning,  and  not  having  seen  him .  .  . 
looks  I  think  a  little  as  though  Mr.  Greville  was 
nibbling  at  the  bait  Mr.  Sheridan  has  thrown  out. 
I  am  also  further  informed  that  Mr.  Sheridan 
slept  at  Kelly's  that  night,  as  he  said,  for  the 
purpose  of  being  near  Carlton  House,  to  be 
ready  the  next  morning  to  accompany  the  Prince 
of   Wales   in  order   that  His  Royal  Highness 


216  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

might  introduce  him  with  his  memorial  to  the 
King,  and  desired  when  he  went  to  bed  that  he 
might  be  called  at  eight  o'clock,  but  unfortu- 
nately having  made  too  free  with  Kelly's  wine, 
he  could  not  rise  till  near  two,  and  thereby  lost 
a  fine  opportunity  of  carrying  his  threats  into 
execution."  ^ 

On  the  facts  stated  in  their  petitions,  counsel 
Adolphus  founded  the  claims  of  Greville  and 
Arnold.  The  desirability  of  a  third  theatre  did 
not  enter  into  the  question  with  them,  only  if  one 
were  to  be  erected,  they  thought  that  justice  de- 
manded a  recognition  of  their  prior  application. 
R.  W.  Elliston,  the  comedian,  manager  of  the 
Royal  Circus,  in  behalf  of  himself,  suggested,  in 
addition  to  the  plea  of  justice,  the  economy  and 
wisdom  of  conferring  the  privileges  of  a  third 
theatre  (if  one  were  expedient)  on  some  of  the 
numerous  proprietors  who  already  had  "  devoted 
their  property  to  such  objects,"  and  who  had 
shown  their  capabilities  of  managing  a  theat- 
rical concern. 

Warren,  in  rebuttal,  showed  the  worthlessnesa 
of  the  petitions  just  introduced,  since,  with  all 
their  pleas  of  priority,  superior  training  for  the 
business,  and  so  forth,  they  had  shown  no  mate- 
rial means  of  supporting  their  claims  ;  whereas 
the  projectors  of  a  third  theatre  had  backed 
1  Historical  MSS.  Commission,  Report  XIII  *,  p.  505. 


A   THIRD   THEATRE   ATTEMPTED       217 

their  proposals  with  X200,000.i  On  the  other 
hand,  the  petitions  of  Greville  and  Arnold  "  as- 
sist us  one-half  of  the  way,"  since  both  recog- 
nized the  necessity  of  a  third  theatre. 

Warren  showed  the  greatest  acumen,  prob- 
ably, when  meeting  the  argument  made  against 
the  corporation  plan,  and  for  his  purpose  he 
found  the  most  valuable  witness  in  Sheridan 
himself.  The  latter  in  his  counter-petition  had 
ended  it  with  the  opinion  that "  the  protection  of 
a  Charter  of  Incorporation  .  .  .  was  the  only 
practicable  mode  of  re-building  the  [DruryLane] 
Theatre,  and  making  a  just  and  honourable  ar- 
rangement with  the  numerous  and  respectable 
persons  interested  in  its  prosperity."  It  was 
hardly  consistent  to  condemn  the  method  of  cor- 
poration proposed  by  the  third  theatre  petitioners, 
and,  in  the  same  breath,  to  declare  that  plan 
the  only  business-like  one  on  which  to  reestab- 
lish the  patent  house. 

Another  apparent  weakness  in  the  coiinter- 
petitions,  and  in  Jackson's  arguments,  was  found 
in  the  point  continually  dwelt  on  by  the  pat- 
entees and  their  representatives,  that  a  third 
theatre  would  add  to  the  unfortunate  condition 
of  "  creditors,  widows,  and  orphans."  "  They  put 
it  as  a  private   case,"  exclaimed  Warren,  "  we 

^  This  thrush  caused  Arnold  and  Greyille  to  set  a  subscrip- 
tion on  foot,  and  in  two  days  they  raised  £70,000. 


218  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

as  a  public  one :  .  .  .  We  are  not  to  be  told, 
by  way  of  argument,  that  private  individuals 
have  laid  out  their  money  and  their  property  in 
theatrical  concerns,  have  been  unsuccessful,  and 
are  ruined ;  that  is  no  consideration  for  your 
Lordships." 

At  the  conclusion  of  Warren's  reply,  after  he 
had  shown  the  flimsiness  of  the  argument  that 
a  corporation  had  no  person  on  which  the  law 
might  seize  (since  the  directors,  or  managers, 
would  stand  in  that  relation),  and  corrected 
the  misconception  respecting  his  arguments  on 
the  invalidity  of  patent  monopolies  (denying 
that  he  had  said  the  patents  were  void  as  regards 
monopolies,  but  as  regards  crown  prerogative), 
Sheridan  sprung  something  of  a  surprise  by  ris- 
ing in  his  place  in  the  Council,  and  announcing 
that  on  the  following  Monday  (March  26)  he 
intended  to  show  that  the  patents  of  the  two 
houses  amounted  to  a  monopoly.  The  Council 
then  adjourned  its  proceedings  on  the  petition 
for  a  third  theatre  until  March  26. 

In  the  interim  the  parties  representing  the 
various  theatrical  interests  in  London  girded 
their  loins  for  a  final  effort.  Arnold  and  Gre- 
ville  secured  the  services  of  Brougham  (who 
had  been  on  the  Northern  Circuit  up  to  March 
25),  who  gave  dignity  to  their  claims,  and  added 
the  very  strong  point  in  favor  of  the  minors, 


A  THIRD   THEATRE   ATTEMPTED       219 

that  though  they  had  to  depend  on  annual 
licenses,  nevertheless,  since  these  had  been 
granted  year  after  year  without  opposition,  the 
proprietors  had  made  large  investments  on  their 
faith  in  the  continuance  of  the  licensed  privi- 
leges. This  was  the  identical  ground  on  which 
the  patentees  claimed  protection  under  their 
patents,  and  if  the  argument  was  effectual  in 
the  one  case  it  should  also  apply  to  the  other. 

Complications  had  arisen  during  the  week 
from  March  19  to  March  26.  Sheridan,  either 
to  defeat  the  petition  of  the  applicants  for  a 
charter  of  incorporation,  or  to  take  advantage  of 
the  occasion  to  reorganize  Drury  Lane  on  a  cor- 
porate plan,  —  or  both,  presented  a  petition  at 
the  third  sitting  of  the  Council,  "  that  if  it  be 
fit  to  advise  His  Majesty  to  grant  any  Charter 
of  Incorporation  for  the  purpose  of  erecting  a 
New  Theatre,  the  same  should  in  every  princi- 
ple of  justice  and  equity,"  be  granted  to  Drury 
Lane,  "  in  preference  to  the  claim  of  any  other 
Applicant." 

Sheridan  was  responsible  for  introducing  still 
other  perplexities  into  the  controversy.  In  his 
first  petition  to  the  Council,  he  had  referred  to 
the  old  Killigrew  patent  as  follows  :  "  If  a  third 
regular  established  Theatre  should  indeed  be 
deemed  necessary,  and  called  for  by  the  Public, 
the  Proprietors  of  Drury  Lane  Theatre  have  a 


220  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

third  reserved  Patent,  which  has  been  purchased 
at  a  considerable  price  by  the  Trustees  of  the  said 
Theatre,  and  which  they  are  willing  should  be  ap- 
plied to  the  attainment  of  the  above  object,  instead 
of  allowing  new  speculators  to  interfere  with  their 
just  rights."  A  brief  sketch  of  the  "  dormant 
patent "  has  been  given  in  a  preceding  chapter. 
It  will  be  remembered  that  George  White  was 
to  receive  X5000  for  his  one-fourth  share  in  the 
patent.  It  now  turns  out  that  no  portion  of  that 
sum  had  ever  been  paid,  and  White,  with  other 
co-partners  in  the  "  dormant  patent,"  rose  up  in 
righteous  indignation  at  Sheridan's  presump- 
tions, and  petitioned  the  King  in  Council  to 
protect  them  in  their  rights ;  "  for  to  this  hour 
no  part  of  the  said  sum  of  .£5000  or  the  interest 
thereof,  hath  been  paid  to  your  Petitioners,  for  the 
agreed  purchase  money,  or  price  of  their  share 
and  interest  in  the  said  Patent." 

The  contract  alluded  to  was  none  other  than 
the  Outline  for  a  General  Opera  Arrangement, 
which  was  hereupon  produced  and  read,  and 
was  probably  better  understood  than  when  it 
was  drawn  up  (1792).  White's  prayer  was  to 
the  effect  that  if  a  third  theatre  should  be  estab- 
lished on  the  authority  of  the  "  dormant  patent," 
he  ought  to  be  admitted  as  a  shareholder  to  the 
extent  of  X5000. 

It  was  time  for  Sheridan  to  prove  his  monop- 


A  THIRD  THEATRE   ATTEMPTED       221 

oly.  But  if  the  curiosity  of  his  hearers  led  them 
to  expect  any  novel  arguments,  they  were  disap- 
pointed. The  assertion  was  made  simply  that 
the  patents  granted  to  Killigrew  and  Davenant 
formed  a  monopoly,  or  they  were  meaningless. 
And  persons  were  not  wanting  to  accept  the 
alternative.  The  monopoly  had  been  created, 
whatever  might  be  thought  of  the  fact,  and,  ar- 
gued Sheridan,  ought  not  to  be  destroyed  with- 
out first  compensating  those  who  had  invested  in 
property  in  the  faith  that  the  exclusive  privileges 
contained  therein  were  inviolable. 

The  Drury  Lane  patentee  declined  to  discuss 
the  expediency  of  a  third  theatre,  that  was  a 
matter  for  others  to  decide  ;  his  main  contention 
was  that  the  "  dormant  patent "  should  have  first 
consideration,  in  case  a  third  theatre  were  desir- 
able. The  danger  of  raking  up  this  old  document 
was  quite  apparent  to  Sheridan,  and  in  his  peti- 
tion he  had  called  it  a  "  reserve  Patent."  Taylor 
and  White  had  brought  the  subject  out  still 
more  prominently,  and  too  frequently  for  its  own 
good.  Warren  was  not  slow  to  pounce  upon  this 
in  his  rejoinder.  It  was  not  clear  to  him,  the 
discrepancy  between  the  "understanding  "  which 
Sheridan  and  the  other  proprietors  had  at  the 
time  of  the  Opera  Arrangement,  respecting  the 
"  dormant  patent,"  and  the  use  to  which  Sheridan 
now  proposed  to  put  it.    Much  pleasantry  was 


222  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

indulged  in  by  Warren  over  the  "  Sleeping 
Beauty,"  to  the  evident  discomfiture  of  the  Drury 
Lane  manager.  Warren  maintained  that,  once 
asleep,  always  asleep  ;  and  from  the  principle  of 
non-user,  he  established  the  invalidity  of  that 
vexatious  document. 

A  glimpse  at  the  proceedings,  before  closing 
this  part  of  the  subject,  will  not  be  out  of  order. 
The  following  description  was  sent  to  Elliston 
(who  was  at  that  time  in  Bath)  by  a  friend : 

"  Sheridan  sat  at  the  Council  board,  whose 
petition  came  on  after  yours.  There  was  one 
also  from  the  wife  of  Tom  Sheridan  [Thomas 
Sheridan  was  at  this  time  in  Spain,  in  a  declin- 
ing state  of  health].  All  the  petitions  were  in 
the  hands  of  counsel,  excepting  Greville's,  yours, 
Sheridan's,  and  that  of  Mrs.  Thomas  Sheridan. 
Sheridan  was  very  declamatory,  and  certainly 
produced  an  effect ;  but,  I  think,  yours  was  as 
persuasive  as  any.  Lord  Harrowby  perused  it 
with  evident  attention.  The  Attorney-General, 
who  was  officially  present,  gave  strong  indications 
of  dislike  and  hostility  to  a  third  theatre,  and 
shook  his  head  wonderously  like  Lord  Burleigh, 
or  as  you  might  have  fancied  the  Xorc?  Mayor 
in  '  Richard  the  Third.' 

"  To  your  petition  Sheridan  listened  with  more 
gravity  than  he  is  accustomed  to  exhibit. 
Graham  was  present,  and  observed,  'you  were  a 


A   THIRD   THEATRE   ATTEMPTED        223 

pretty  fellow  to  petition  the  King  after  violating 
the  laws  of  your  Circus  ;  and  that  if  you  were 
brought  before  him,  he  should  deem  the  utmost 
penalty  under  the  Vagrant  Act  applicable  to 
your  case.'  The  Justice  was  in  a  fury,  much  was 
said  about  the  illegality  of  your  circus  '  Macbeth,' 
when  Sheridan  slily  observed,  the  greatest  viola- 
tion was  to  the  bard,  in  your  attempting  the 
impersonation.  Adam  attending  on  behalf  of 
Drury  Lane  Theatre  — he  was  quite  didactic  and 
pathetic."  ^ 

This  closed  the  arguments  of  the  famous  pro- 
ceedings in  Council  for  a  third  theatre.  Scarcely 
a  feature  of  the  theatrical  situation  relative  to 
the  patents  had  escaped  the  closest  scrutiny. 
All  imaginable  arguments,  from  the  various 
hostile  attitudes  of  the  Crown  to  the  patentees, 
from  the  grants  of  other  licenses  and  patents, 
from  analogies  in  other  monopolistic  fields, 
from  the  abstract  question  of  crown  prerogative, 
down  to  the  practical  absurdity  and  injustice  of 
a  theatrical  (or  any)  monopoly  in  the  nineteenth 
century,  were  marshaled  against  the  patentees. 
But  the  Privy  Council  was  like  adamant.  As 
Sheridan  had  admitted,  monopolies  were  gener- 
ally looked  upon  as  evils  and  probably  were ; 
nevertheless,  the  theatrical  monopoly,  by  long- 
established  custom,  had  been  made  an  exception, 
^  Raymond's  Life  of  Elliston,  pp.  169,  170. 


224  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

and  it  was  not  for  their  Lordships  to  make  the 
first  break  into  the  "  sacred  rights  "  of  the  pat- 
ents. Furthermore,  they  could  evade  the  main 
issue  by  holding  their  decision  strictly  to  the  mat- 
ter of  the  corporation  plan  of  the  petitioners. 

The  result  of  the  hearing  before  the  Privy 
Council  was  made  public  on  the  14th  of  April 
(1810).^  The  opinion  of  the  Attorney  and 
Solicitor-General  was  sustained,  and  the  ques- 
tion of  the  expediency  of  a  third  winter  theatre 
left  unsettled.  This  finding  was  a  foregone  con- 
clusion ;  but  the  arguments  before  His  Majesty's 
Council  had  served  to  bring  out,  as  never  be- 
fore, all  the  questions  connected  with  the  the- 
atrical patents.  The  proceedings  developed  the 
fact  also  that  there  was  a  strong  antagonism  to 
monopolies,  even  among  the  supporters  of  the 
patentees, —  Sheridan  himself  admitted  his  dis- 
like for  them  in  general.  But  the  theatrical 
monopoly  still  remained  legally  as  firmly  estab- 
lished as  in  the  time  of  Charles  II. 

1  Gentleman's  Magazine,  April,  1810. 


CHAPTER  IX 

THE   ATTEMPT   TO   ESTABLISH   A   THIRD   THEATRE  : 
PROCEEDINGS   IN   PARLIAMENT 

PETITION  is  the  inalienable  birthright  of  the 
Briton.  The  defeat  of  the  third  theatre  ef- 
fort in  the  Privy  Council  was  promptly  followed 
by  a  memorial  to  the  King  for  a  theatre  patent.^ 
But  what  the  petitioners  could  hope  for  in  that 
quarter  is  hard  to  conceive.  Taking  the  cue 
from  these  attempts,  the  performers  at  the  late 
theatre  in  Drury  Lane  petitioned  His  Majesty 
(May  9,  1810),  through  the  Lord  Chamber- 
lain, for  a  license  to  erect  and  conduct  a  new 
theatre  on  the  plan  of  the  patent  houses.  Of 
course  the  prayer  was  useless,  but  it  contains 
matter  germane  to  the  subject  of  a  third  theatre. 
The  performers  set  forth  that,  since  the  burning 
of  Drury  Lane,  they  had  been  deprived  of  the 
emoluments  which  were  their  due  ;  that,  though 
they  had  no  desire  to  interfere  with  vested  prop- 
erty rights,  they  had  no  confidence  in  the 
proprietors'  ability  to  rebuild  the  patent  theatre  ; 
and  that,  if  a  third  theatre  were  permitted  to  be 

1  Gendemati's  Magazine,  April,  1810. 


226  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

built,  the  performers  should  have  the  preference. 
Substantial  reasons  were  given  in  support  of 
their  petition.  As  to  the  means  necessary  for 
such  a  venture  they  assured  the  King  that,  with 
what  had  been  proffered  to  them  already,  and 
with  what  they  could  raise  among  themselves, 
they  would  have  ample  means  for  the  purpose 
of  erecting  and  conducting  a  theatre  such  as 
Garrick  acted  in,  "  when  seeing  and  hear- 
ing were  principally  and  materially  attended 
to."  ^  As  argument  in  favor  of  theatrical  man- 
agement by  experienced  actors,  the  history  of 
the  stage  was  cited.  It  was  assumed  as  axiom- 
atic that  the  representation  of  the  drama  would 
be  better  conducted  by  artists  than  speculators. 
It  was  promised  that,  in  case  their  petition  were 
granted,  they  would  establish  a  fund  for  the 
benefit  of  the  infirm  and  aged  of  their  profes- 
sion. Out  of  these  suggestions  were  to  appear, 
later,  benefits  of  practical  worth  to  the  actor ; 
though  the  present  attempt  to  establish  a  third 
theatre  by  professionals  proved  futile. 

The  proceedings  in  Council  had  been  dragged 
out  to  such  length  that  the  original  petitioners 
were  prevented  from  getting  a  bill  before  Par- 
liament before  the  close  of  the  session.  In  the 
mean  time,  Sheridan  had  taken  time  by  the  fore- 
lock and  petitioned  the  House  of  Commons  for 

1  London  Chronicle,  May  15,  1810. 


PROCEEDINGS   IN   PARLIAMENT        227 

the  privilege  of  transferring  the  Drury  Lane 
property  to  a  large  body  of  subscribers  in  order 
that  the  claims  of  creditors  to  the  establishment 
might  be  satisfied,  and  for  the  purpose  of  re- 
building the  theatre.  It  was  especially  implored 
that  the  proposed  subscribers  should  not  be  held 
liable  for  more  than  their  subscriptions.^  This 
was  precisely  the  ground  on  which  the  third 
theatre  projectors  had  been  denied ;  but  Sheri- 
dan was  back  of  the  scheme  now,  and  that  made 
a  difference. 

But  this  move  did  not  deter  the  agitators  for 
a  third  theatre.  The  next  session  of  Parliament 
found  them  in  a  stronger  array  than  ever.  No 
serious  attempt  had  been  made  to  rebuild  Drury 
Lane  Theatre,  and  this  fact  became  a  strong 
argument  for  a  new  theatrical  establishment, 
although  the  promoters  of  a  third  theatre  per- 
sistently denied  that  Drury  Lane,  in  reality  or 
in  ashes,  entered  at  all  into  their  motives. 
Nevertheless,  the  existence  of  but  a  single  the- 
atre, exercising  a  power  more  exclusive  than 
any  since  the  days  of  Christopher  Rich,  giving 
to  the  public  a  grade  of  entertainment,  if  not 

1  Cobbett's  Parliamentary  Debates,  1st  Series,  vol.  xvi,  col.  757. 
It  is  noteworthy  that  .when  the  Drury  Lane  Rebuilding  Bill 
was  before  the  House  of  Lords,  one  (the  Duke  of  Norfolk)  who 
was  financially  interested  in  Drury  Lane  Theatre  expressed  a 
decided  opinion  that  there  ought  to  be  a  third  theatre.  Cobbett, 
vol.  xvii,  col.  747.    See  also  London  Chronicle,  March  3,  1812. 


228  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

undeniably  inferior  in  quality,  at  least  highly 
unsatisfactory  to  the  most  enlightened  taste, 
pleaded  forcibly  on  the  side  of  open  competition. 
A  new  champion  now  arose  to  assist  in  the 
struggle  for  a  free  stage.  John  Williams  (1761- 
1818),  satirist  and  critic,  the  "  terror  of  actors 
and  actresses,  good  and  bad,"  entered  the  lists, 
and,  as  editor  of  the  "  Dramatic  Censor  for  1811," 
made  the  campaign  against  the  patentees  one  of 
education.  "With  less  judgment  than  Aaron  Hill, 
Williams  was  a  more  caustic  critic  than  his 
worthy  predecessor,  and  was  willing  to  go  to 
infinite  pains  to  establish  the  charges  made 
against  the  patentees.  He  went  into  a  careful 
examination  of  the  patents  to  determine,  if  pos- 
sible, the  source  of  an  exclusive  privilege  which 
compelled  the  inhabitants  of  the  city  and  suburbs 
of  London  "  to  make  a  weary  and  expensive  pil- 
grimage of  many  miles,  whenever  they  may  want 
to  suspend  the  operations  of  care,  by  a  visit, 
with  their  families,  to  a  colloquial  theatre ;  and 
why  their  ears  and  eyes  are  offended,  when  they 
are  there,  by  a  pertinacious  and  insulting  display 
of  vulgar  and  ungrammatical  pronunciation  of 
language,  and  by  debasing  spectacles  in  action."  ^ 
As  Hill  had  maintained  in  1735,  so  now  it  was 
pointed  out,  that  it  was  the  misuse  of  power  in 
the  hands  of  the  patentees  which  lay  at  the  bot- 

^  Dramatic  Censor,  col.  97,  et  sq. 


PROCEEDINGS   IN   PARLIAMENT        229 

torn  of  the  complaints,  and  that  a  correction  of 
the  evils  would  come  the  sooner,  the  greater  the 
abuse.  Among  the  charges  laid  at  the  doors 
of  the  winter  theatres  was  the  encouragement  of 
dullness,  and  the  discountenance  of  genius.  It 
was  declared  that,  "  until  the  spell  of  monopoly 
is  dissolved  and  broken,  neither  the  Public,  nor 
the  Children  of  Genius,  can  have  any  alternative 
but  a  desponding  submission  to  the  baneful 
effects  of  an  exclusive  patent." 

On  the  last  day  of  January,  1811,  the  petition 
for  a  third  theatre  in  London  was  presented  to 
the  House  of  Commons.'  The  plan  proposed 
for  the  new  theatre  differed  from  those  thereto- 
fore devised.  The  subscriptions  were  to  be  £1000 
each,  the  subscribers  to  form  a  joint  proprietor- 
ship. The  proprietors  were  to  receive  ten  per 
cent,  on  their  subscriptions,  if  the  profits 
amounted  to  so  much,  otherwise  there  was  to 
be  an  equal  and  rateable  division  of  the  actual 
profits  of  the  concern.  If  more  than  ten  per  cent, 
should  be  realized  on  the  investment,  the  surplus, 
up  to  five  per  cent.,  was  to  be  distributed 
amongst  the  public  charities. 

There  were  to  be  no  "  free  admissions  "  of  any 
kind,   or   to   any   one."     A  committee   of    four, 

1  European  Magazine,  vol.  59,  p.  142 ;  Gentleman'' s  Magazine, 
vol.  81,  pt.  1,  p.  164. 

2  This  was  one  of  the  chief  complaints  against  the  patent 


230  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

chosen  for  life  as  chief  directors,  together  with 
the  Lord  Chamberlain  or  his  nominee,  were  to 
constitute  a  Board  of  Superintendence,  with 
power  to  appoint  annually  a  manager.  The 
manager  was  to  have  unlimited  control  over  the 
internal  affairs  of  the  theatre,  with  the  proviso 
that  the  engagement  of  performers  and  the 
question  of  their  salaries  must  be  submitted  to 
the  Board  for  approval.  No  actor,  while  a 
public  performer,  could  serve  as  manager.^ 
Prices  of  admission  were  fixed  at  6s.  to  the 
boxes,  3s.  to  the  pit,  2s.  to  the  lower  gallery, 
and  Is.  to  the  upper  gallery.  The  size  of  the 
theatre  was  planned  to  be  but  little  more  than 
that  of  Old  Drury  before  1791.  No  property 
boxes  were  included  in  the  plan,  although  the 
stage  boxes  were  to  be  at  the  disposal  of  the 
performers  for  their  friends ;  while  the  system 
of  "orders"  found  no  place  in  the  proposed 
new  theatre. 

This  plan  had  much  to  commend  it.  The  evils 
and  abuses  attendant  on,  and  fostered  by,  the 
patent  houses  were  to  be  totally  inhibited ;  the 
accommodation  of  the  public  was  kept  constantly 

houses.  "  Women  of  the  town  "  would,  at  the  opening  of  the 
season,  purchase,  for  a  nominal  sum,  say  £5,  entrance  to  the 
theatre  for  the  entire  year.  This  was  called  "  free  admission." 
^  This  clause  was  aimed  to  cover  the  complaints  against 
Kemhle  at  Covent  Garden,  apropos  of  the  "  O.  P."  i-iots. 


PROCEEDINGS   IN    PARLIAMENT        231 

in  view  ;  and  while  a  sufficiently  liberal  arrange- 
ment was  offered  to  shareholders  to  induce  them 
to  invest  their  capital  in  the  concern,  all  tenden- 
cies towards  running  the  theatre  for  private 
gains  were  discouraged.  It  was  confidently 
hoped  by  the  well-wishers  of  the  plan  that  the 
time  was  at  last  come  to  break  the  monopoly. 
The  more  enthusiastic  supporters  of  the  idea 
went  so  far  as  to  announce  an  almost  certain 
victory.  The  patentees  were  told  that  they  alone 
had,  "by  their  own  misconduct,  put  an  end  to 
that  exclusion  of  competition,  which  it  was  their 
interest  to  preserve."  ^ 

But  zeal  in  a  cause  does  not  always  insure 
success.  Once  more  the  host  had  not  been  reck- 
oned with.  The  spirit  of  Old  Drury,  like  the 
Killigrew  patent,  was  only  sleeping.  Rousing 
itself  in  the  presence  of  danger,  the  committee, 
appointed  under  the  Rebuilding  Act  to  examine 
into  and  adjust  the  affairs  of  that  theatre,  met 
(March  12,  1811)  and  resolved  "  to  proceed 
with  vigilance  and  assiduity." 

Taking  timely  alarm  at  the  promulgation  of 
this  report  of  the  Drury  Lane  Rebuilding 
Committee,  the  petitioners  for  a  new  theatre 
(probably  with  a  view  to  incite  the  members 
of  Parliament,  friendly  to  their  attempts,  to  be 
present  when  the  second  reading  of  the  bill 
^  Dramatic  Censor  for  1811,  cols.  248-258. 


232  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

came  up)  caused  to  be  published  a  response 
to  the  action  taken  by  the  Drury  Lane  pro- 
prietors. The  conduct  of  Sheridan  in  the  Privy 
Council  in  1810  was  reviewed.  They  called  at- 
tention to  the  impression  which  the  astute  man- 
ager left  at  that  time,  that  there  was  a  fair 
prospect  of  rebuilding  the  Drury  Lane  Thea- 
tre, for  which  ostensible  purpose  a  subsequent 
bill  of  incorporation  had  been  passed.  When 
Sheridan  had,  by  these  tactics,  succeeded  in 
silencing  his  opponents,  "his  splendid  abilities 
fell  again  into  their  wonted  lethargy,"  and  the 
announcement  of  the  Drury  Lane  Committee 
that  they  had  determined  "  to  proceed  with  vigi- 
lance and  assiduity,"  was  the  result  of  the  "un- 
wearied Petitioners  renewing  their  application 
to  Parliament."  And  again  it  was  declared  that 
the  affairs  of  Drury  Lane  had  no  relation  what- 
ever to  the  third  theatre  project. 

Other  considerations  of  a  cogent  nature  inter- 
vened to  delay  the  decision  of  Parliament  on  the 
London  Theatre  Bill.  On  the  25th  of  March 
(1811),  Mr.  Mellish  (member  for  Middlesex) 
moved  the  second  reading.  When  the  Speaker 
put  the  question,  whether  counsel  were  in  attend- 
ance, the  inevitable  Sheridan  arose  and  blandly 
stated  that  he  had  no  intention  of  calling  in  the 
assistance  of  a  lawyer,  that  a  brief  statement 
of  the  circumstances  of  the  case  would  be  suf- 


PROCEEDINGS   IN   PARLIAMENT        233 

ficient  to  enable  the  House  to  determine  the 
question  before  them.  The  representative  of 
Drury  Lane  was  of  opinion  that  the  originator 
of  the  motion  had  been  influenced  by  the  erro- 
neous supposition  that  Drury  Lane  would  not 
be  rebuilt ;  but  he  (Sheridan)  felt  confident  that 
when  he  assured  them  that  this  was  a  mistaken 
notion,  and  that  there  was  the  strongest  possi- 
bility of  its  speedy  reestablishment,  it  would  be 
deemed  advisable  to  withdraw  the  bill.  This 
story  of  the  "  orator,  wit,  classic,  and  statesman," 
that  the  rebuilding  of  Drury  Lane  Theatre  was 
imminent,  had  been  repeated  often  enough  to 
form  a  standing  joke.  He  had  depended  on  it 
to  defeat  the  projects  of  the  petitioners  for  a  new 
theatre  in  1810,  and  now,  two  years  after  the 
theatre  had  been  In  ashes,  he  repeated  the  worn- 
out  tale.  Some  there  were,  induced  in  good 
faith  to  contribute  a  small  fortune  towards  re- 
building the  patent  house,  who  now  looked  upon 
the  equivocating,  procrastinating  methods  of  the 
manager  of  that  concern  as  the  sheerest  non- 
sense, used  to  cover  up  a  wholesale  swindling 
operation.^ 

Having  mentioned  the  Rebuilding  Act,  Sher- 

^  See  letter  to  Dramatic  Censor,  for  April,  1811,  cols.  219- 
221,  from  one  who  claimed  to  have  subscribed  £150,000  and 
who  had  been  "  to  that  hour  unpaid,  either  principal  or  in- 
terest." 


234  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

idan  was  under  the  necessity  of  explaining  why 
that  legislation  had  not  been  taken  advantage 
of.  His  excuse  was,  that,  after  the  bill  had 
passed,  it  had  been  intimated  to  him  that  the 
Chamberlain  (Lord  Dartmouth)  had  intended 
to  question  the  legality  of  the  "  dormant  patent," 
and  that  he  had  received  from  his  Lordship  a 
letter  (dated  June  28,  1810),  expressive  of  his 
resolution  to  oppose  the  erection  of  any  theatre 
in  Westminster.  A  compromise  was  reached, 
however,  by  which  it  was  agreed  to  leave  the 
"  dormant  patent "  out  of  the  question,  and  to 
permit  the  running  license  to  continue  for  twenty- 
one  years.  These,  said  Sheridan,  were  the 
causes  of  delay  in  rebuilding  Drury  Lane,  and 
time  was  what  they  now  required.  At  any  rate, 
he  maintained,  it  was  not  the  custom  for  the 
legislature  to  interfere  with  charter  and  patent 
rights  without  adequate  compensation.  On  the 
other  hand,  it  was  pretty  clear  to  many  that 
the  notorious  embarrassments  of  Drury  Lane 
had  rendered  the  proprietors  incapable  of  re- 
building it.^  This  fact  had  become  apparent 
to  those  most  intimately  concerned  in  the  in- 
terests of  the  patent  house.     Sheridan's  genius 

^  Cobbett's  Parliamentary  Debates,  1st  series,  vol.  xix,  cols. 
496-500;  London  Chronicle,  March  26,  1811;  Gentleman's 
Magazine,  vol.  81,  pt.  1,  p.  373 ;  European  Magazine,  vol.  59, 
p.  300. 


PROCEEDINGS  IN   PARLIAMENT        235 

and  finesse  had  succeeded  for  thirty  years  in 
baffling  the  foes  of  the  monopoly,  but,  with  the 
theatre  in  ashes  and  the  finances  of  the  insti- 
tution hopelessly  involved,  it  seemed  beyond  his 
power  to  extricate  the  affairs  of  Old  Drury  from 
the  ruin  which  enveloped  it.  Furthermore, 
Sheridan's  business  methods  were  not  of  the 
sort  to  inspire  confidence  in  his  followers.  He 
had  exhausted  his  fund  of  tricks,  which  had 
once  passed  for  magic,  in  raising  enormous  sums 
of  money ;  and,  without  financial  aid,  Drury 
Lane  Theatre  could  not  be  rebuilt.  Meantime 
the  arguments  for  a  third  theatre  were  grow- 
ing more  and  more  importunate. 

In  this  crisis  a  recruit  appeared  on  the  side 
of  theatrical  monopoly  to  frustrate  the  hopes  of 
the  third  theatre  enthusiasts.  More  than  this, 
by  vigilance  and  zeal  in  behalf  of  Drury  Lane, 
he  succeeded  in  performing  the  seven-days  wonder 
of  rearing  a  phoenix  out  of  the  ashes  of  the 
burnt  patent  house.  If  one  should  turn  the  leaves 
of  parliamentary  history  for  the  period  under 
consideration,  one  would  find  a  name  recurring 
so  frequently  as  to  call  for  special  attention. 
Scarcely  a  question  of  importance  or  public  in- 
terest arose  at  this  time  in  the  metropolis  with- 
out receiving  the  opinion  of  Samuel  Whitbread, 
Esquire,  the  great  London  brewer,  to  whose 
judgment   the   greatest   respect   was   accorded. 


236  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

When  the  Rebuilding  Act  was  passed  (1810), 
incorporating  the  Drury  Lane  proprietors,  Whit- 
bread  was  named  in  the  Committee  to  investi- 
gate the  affairs  of  the  theatre.  He  now  appeared 
in  the  House  of  Commons  and  infused  new 
spirit  into  the  opposition  to  the  London  Theatre 
Bin.  He  sanctioned  all  that  Sheridan  had  said; 
but  he  did  more  than  merely  supplement  the 
orator  and  politician, — he  became  the  new  stand- 
ard-bearer of  theatrical  patent  rights.  When 
Whitbread  arose  as  sponsor  for  Drury  Lane  he 
received  the  attention  due  an  oracle ;  and  when 
he  asserted  that  he  confidently  expected  the  re- 
storation of  Old  Drury,  cries  of  "  Hear  !  Hear  !  " 
resounded  from  the  House.  He  thought  that,  in 
■  view  of  the  prospects  of  rebuilding  the  theatre, 
the  third  theatre  advocates  would  be  willing  to 
postpone  the  second  reading  of  the  London 
Theatre  Bill  for  six  weeks,  in  which  time  he 
hoped  to  be  able  to  speak  decidedly  as  to  the 
progress  of  the  rebuilding  committee.  It  was 
useless  to  reiterate  to  the  House  that  the  re- 
building of  Drury  Lane  Theatre  had  nothing 
to  do  with  the  matter  before  them;  since  the 
decision  of  the  Privy  Council  in  1810,  the  two 
questions  had  been  indissolubly  linked.  All  op- 
position to  Whitbread's  motion  to  postpone  the 
second  reading  was  futile,  and  the  death-knell  of 
a  third  theatre  was  struck. 


PROCEEDINGS   IN   PARLIAMENT        237 

But  the  battle  was  not  over  by  any  means. 
During  the  six  weeks'  interval,  the  contestants 
were  busy.  The  "Dramatic  Censor "  continued 
to  put  in  earnest  strokes  against  the  monopoly. 
Vigorous  attempts  were  made  to  arouse  a  senti- 
ment against  the  Rebuilding  Act ;  the  method 
of  carrying  it  "  through  both  Houses  of  Parlia- 
ment with  a  degree  of  silence  unparalleled  "  was 
stigmatized,  and  especially  obnoxious  was  the 
clause  it  contained  providing  for  private  boxes. 

The  injury  to  the  histrionic  profession  by  the 
monopoly  was  greatly  deprecated.  The  policy 
that  caused  the  dismissal  of  Holman  and  Pope 
from  Covent  Garden  was  branded  as  "crooked." 
The  motive  back  of  their  ejectment  was  declared 
"too  palpable  to  be  problematic."  These  artists, 
it  was  asserted,  were  walking  the  streets  unem- 
ployed, "  with  the  broad  arrow  of  managerial 
interdiction  "  on  their  brows,  the  former  "  wait- 
ing for  some  friendly  bark  to  transport  him  over 
the  trackless  ocean  ;  "  the  latter,  "  silent  and  sad, 
in  a  state  of  proscription,  idleness,  and  despair." 
It  was  broadly  insinuated  that  "  the  dog  in  the 
manger "  at  Covent  Garden  was  the  cause  of 
the  expatriation  of  some  of  England's  best 
actors.* 

^  One  of  the  complaints  brought  against  Kemble  was  that 
he  was  jealous  of  good  actors,  and  for  that  reason  dismissed 
all  dangerous  rivals,  reporting  to  sijectaele  rather  than  risk 


238  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

On  the  9th  of  May  Mellish  again  moved  the 
second  reading  of  the  bill  for  a  third  theatre. 
Whitbread  at  once  announced  "  the  strongest 
probability  that  Drury  Lane  might  be  recon- 
structed," and  recommended  a  further  postpone- 
ment of  the  motion  before  the  House  to  the  next 
session,  at  which  time  he  would  agree  to  pledge 
himself,  as  a  member  of  Parliament,  to  take  no 
active  part  against  the  application  for  a  third 
theatre  if  Drury  Lane  Theatre  was  not,  by  that 
time,  in  the  course  of  building.  This  was  not 
satisfactory  to  the  champions  of  the  Theatre 
Bill.  What  Whitbread  had  stated  was  no  more 
definite  than  what  had  been  presented  six  weeks 
before,  and  even  if  it  were,  the  essential  question 
remained,  —  the  expediency  of  a  third  theatre.^ 
The  debate  on  this  occasion  grew  more  general 
than  usual.  Both  sides  felt  that  the  fio'ht  was 
to  a  finish.  The  chairman  (Mr.  Peter  Moore) 
of  the  committee  to  inquire  into  the  affairs  of 
Drury  Lane  reported  that  the  claims  on  the  the- 
atre were  in  a  fair  way  of  settlement,  and  that 
many  of  the  creditors  (including  Sheridan)  had 
released  the  proprietors  from  all  obligations. 
He  further  stated  that,  if  more  time,  say  three 

his  professional  reputation  to  the  dangers  of  competition. 
Emigration  of  actors  to  America  did  not  begin,  however,  to 
any  extent,  before  about  1819. 

^  See  speech  of  Mr.  A.   Browne,   Cobbett's  Parliamentary 
Debates,  vol.  19, 1st  Series,  col.    1 140. 


PROCEEDINGS  IN  PARLIAMENT        239 

months,  were  allowed  them,  they  could  assure 
the  rebuilding  of  "  that  noble  structure." 

General  Tarleton  grew  sentimental  when  re- 
ferring to  Sheridan's  generosity  in  contributing 
the  amount  due  him.  As  to  a  third  theatre,  the 
General  could  not  see  the  necessity  of  it  when 
Kemble  had  to  introduce  quadrupeds  at  Covent 
Garden  in  lieu  of  actors.  He  intimated  that,  as 
it  was  an  age  of  speculation,  the  promoters  of 
the  bill  were  "  gentlemen  speculating  in  theatres, 
who  never  read  the  poets,  and  never  entered 
a  play-house."  Nothing  could  have  been  better 
calculated  to  fire  the  enemies  of  the  monopoly 
than  this  speech.  Mr.  Marryatt  was  instantly 
on  his  feet  to  disavow  the  charge  of  speculation. 
He  took  occasion,  in  passing,  to  call  attention 
to  the  inconvenience  to  which  the  theatre-going 
public  of  London  were  put,  from  the  circum- 
stance of  having  only  one  winter  theatre.  "  If 
a  gentleman,"  he  said,  "  applied  for  a  box  for 
himself  and  family,  he  was  informed  he  could 
not  get  one  for  fourteen  days ;  and  thus  taking 
it  on  chance  for  that  time,  if  they  wanted  to 
laugh  at  a  Comedy,  they  were  perhaps  seated 
to  cry  at  a  Tragedy."  It  was  quite  clear  to  Mr. 
Marryatt  that  the  charge  of  speculation  was 
more  applicable  to  the  patent  manager  who 
manipulated  the  monopoly  for  his  own  private 
ends.    The  evil  was  still  further  aggravated,  he 


240  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

declared,  by  the  fact  that  "some  of  the  very 
best  .  .  .  performers  in  the  country  could  not 
procure  engagements,  as  they  had  been  displaced 
by  the  quadrupeds  which  could  be  obtained  at 
a  cheaper  rate,  and  could  act  on  the  largest 
theatre,  as  'there  was  no  necessity  of  watching 
the  expressive  turns  of  their  countenances  ! " 
Kemble  had  but  recently  introduced  elephants 
at  Covent  Garden. 

This  thrust  was  too  much  for  Sheridan  to  re- 
main quiet  under.  He  replied  warmly  to  the 
accusations  against  Kemble,  and  alleged  that 
quadrupeds  had  been  brought  in  to  satisfy  the 
depraved  taste  of  the  town.  This,  he  was  confi- 
dent, was  the  true  explanation  ;  for  he  recalled  an 
instance  when,  against  the  judgment  of  his  theat- 
rical advisers,  he  had  given  a  representation  of 
Joanna  Baillie's  De  Monfort^  and  though  "this 
play  was  brought  forward  .  .  .  with  all  the  aid  of 
Mr.  Kemble  and  Mrs.  Siddons,  and  the  most 
superb  scenery,"  nevertheless  "through  the  per- 
verted taste  of  the  public  it  had  failed." 

Sheridan  then  reviewed  the  proceedings  be- 
fore the  Privy  Council  in  1810,  and  expressed 
his  confidence  in  Parliament  that  it  would  never 
contradict  such  high  authority,  nor  usurp  the 
prerogative  of  the  Crown.  The  greatest  effect 
was  given  to  this  dramatic  speech  when  refer- 
ence was  made  to  Whitbread  as  surety  for  the 


PROCEEDINGS   IN   PARLIAMENT        241 

speaker's  sincerity.  The  quickness  with  which 
Sheridan  had  caught  the  current  in  favor  of 
the  areat  brewer  showed  that  he  had  lost  none 
of  his  former  generalship.  He  sat  down  amidst 
the  "Hear!  Hear!  Hear!"  of  the  auditors; 
and  although  some  further  efforts  were  put  for- 
ward by  the  supporters  of  the  bill,  its  doom  was 
sealed.  The  vote  for  postponement  of  the  second 
reading  stood  80  to  23  in  the  affirmative;  and 
postponement  to  the  next  session  meant  that 
the  bill  was  irrevocably  lost.  For  the  spirit 
which  Whitbread  infused  into  the  defense  of 
the  monopoly,  and  the  sturdy  determination 
manifested  on  the  part  of  the  third  theatre  pro- 
jectors to  push  their  bill  through  Parliament, 
had  given  new  life  to  the  old  concern.  Proposals 
were  published  for  settlement  with  the  creditors 
of  Drury  Lane  and  for  the  rebuilding  of  the 
theatre.  And  at  two  general  meetings  of  the  sub- 
scribers (one  on  the  14th,  the  other  on  the  31st, 
of  October,  1811),  satisfactory  arrangements 
with  all  claimants  were  made.  The  rebuilding 
of  Drury  Lane  Theatre  before  the  first  of  Octo- 
ber, 1812,  was  assured,  and  in  less  than  a  year 
from  the  first  of  those  meetings.  New  Drury 
Lane  was  opened  (October  12,  1812)  to  the 
public  with  "  a  flourish  of  trumpets  and  beating 
of  drums."  ^ 

^  A  full  report  of  these  proceedings  was   published  in  the 


242  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

But  the  ghost  of  the  third  theatre  would  not 
down.  Two  weeks  after  the  silencing  of  the  bill, 
a  motion  was  before  the  House,  preliminary  to 
the  introduction  of  a  similar  measure  at  the  next 
session  of  Parliament.  Preparatory  to  this  step 
the  mover  (Mr.  Taylor)  thought  it  advisable, 
during  the  recess,  to  ascertain  the  existing  state 
of  the  stage  as  well  as  the  privileges  exercised 
by  the  monopoly  over  exclusive  departments  of 
the  drama.  The  abstract  principle  upon  which 
this  motion  and  all  similar  applications  for 
a  third  theatre  were  based,  was  the  simple  prop- 
osition that  if  the  instructive  amusement  of 
the  public  was  a  good  thing,  then  the  public 
should  have  an  unquestionable  right  to  that 
good,  and  that  no  restrictions  should  be  placed 
on  the  enjoyment  of  the  right,  except  on  the 
ground  of  political  expediency,  or  absolute  ne- 
cessity. The  contemplated  motion  to  inquire  into 
theatrical  representations  was  the  more  neces- 
sary, because  of  the  growing  depravity  of  taste 
which  had  resulted  from  "  the  mummeries  now 
exhibiting  at  some  of  the  theatres."  No  aim  to 
interfere  with  the  interests  of  Drury  Lane  Thea- 
tre was  intended  by  the  motion  "  to  inquire  into 

Dramatic  Censor,  for  May,  October,  and  November,  1811, 
cols.  257-259,  399-403,  416-420.  See  also  Cobbett,  Parlia- 
mentary  Debates,  \ol.  19,  1st  Series,  1140-1147;  Gentleman's 
Magazine,  June,  1811;  European  Magazine,  vol.  60,  p.  54. 


PROCEEDINGS   IN  PARLIAMENT        243 

and  report  upon  the  present  state  of  the  Dra- 
matic and  Scenic  representation  at  the  Theatres 
in  this  metropolis,  together  with  the  grounds  and 
nature  of  the  privileges  and  immunities  claimed 
by  the  several  Theatres,  and  the  restraints  im- 
posed thereby  on  the  amusements  of  the  pub- 
lic." ^  The  new  Cerberus,  Whitbread,  immedi- 
ately thrust  himself  into  the  breach  thus  made 
in  the  patent  defenses,  showing  to  the  satisfac- 
tion of  the  House  the  evil  intent  as  well  as  the 
certain  bad  consequences  of  the  motion,  should 
it  pass.  Any  attempt  to  pry  into  "the  abstract 
merits  of  any  question  touching  the  monopoly 
must  tend  to  throw  cold  water  upon  the  present 
public  inclination "  towards  the  rebuilding  of 
Drury  Lane  Theatre.  This  had  the  desired  ef- 
fect, and  the  motion  was  withdrawn. 

The  importance  of  this  abortive  attempt  to 
investigate  the  state  of  the  drama  and  the  nature 
of  the  privileges  bestowed  on  the  two  patent 
theatres  is  not  at  once  apparent.  As  a  matter 
of  fact,  it  was  calculated  to  reach  the  root  of 
the  theatrical  situation  by  the  most  direct 
method.  It  is  the  first  genuine  effort  to  go  be- 
hind the  scenes  for  the  purpose  of  scrutinizing 
the  claims  of  the  monoply  and  the  alleged  abuse 
of  privilege  by  the  patentees.    Those  interested 

^  Cobbett's  Parliamentary  Debates,  1st  Series,  vol.  xx, 
288-290 ;  London  Chronicle,  May  24,  1811. 


244  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

in  Drury  Lane  Theatre  knew  well  enough  the 
clanger  attending  such  an  examination,  and,  natu- 
rally, preferred  to  keep  the  question  in  the  back- 
ground. So  long  as  mere  asseveration  and  con- 
jecture were  the  only  obstacles,  the  patentees 
could  rest  assured  that  political  influence  was 
a  sufficient  bulwark.  But  the  motion  to  investi- 
gate the  real  conditions  and  facts  about  the 
great  houses  was  not  utterly  lost.  Twenty  years 
later  it  reappeared,  when  it  proved  to  be  the 
beginning  of  the  end. 

Matters  rested  thus  until  the  beginning  of 
1812,  when,  on  the  7th  of  February,  with  a 
dogged  persistence,  the  third  theatre  leaders 
were  in  Parliament  again  with  a  petition.  This 
time  the  patentees  were  openly  charged  with 
degrading  the  drama  by  the  introduction  of 
horses,  dogs,  and  an  elephant  on  the  stage. 
Kemble  was  also  accused  of  professional  jealousy 
which  not  only  lowered  the  character  of  the  re- 
presentations at  Covent  Garden,  but  also  threw 
the  most  gifted  actors  out  of  employment.  The 
20th  of  March  was  set  for  the  second  reading 
of  the  bill ;  and  Sheridan  being  away  from  the 
House  (owing  to  illness)  on  that  date,  AVhit- 
bread  asked  for  a  postponement  of  its  consider- 
ation until  Sheridan  could  be  present.  But 
delay  had  been  the  game  for  two  years,  and  the 
petitioners  were  in  no  mood  for  such  dilly-dally- 


PROCEEDINGS   IN   PARLIAMENT        245 

ing  methods.  Forced  on  the  defensive,  Whit- 
bread  pleaded  the  cause  of  Drury  Lane  in  the 
same  old  strain,  and  moved  a  postponement  for 
six  months.  The  grounds  that  had  been  tra- 
versed on  both  sides,  ad  nauseam^  were  again 
gone  over.  But  it  was  evident  that  the  third 
theatre  party  were  clutching  at  the  last  straw, 
though,  in  the  two  years  that  had  intervened 
since  their  first  effort,  they  had  filled  out  their 
ranks  in  Parliament  until  their  minority  was 
a  respectable  one  at  least.  The  motion  to  post- 
pone was  carried  58  to  34.^  The  Third  Theatre 
Bill  was  dead.  Lord  Ossulton  tried  to  revive  it 
the  next  session,  but  the  single  opposition  of 
Whitbread  was  sufficient  to  silence  it  forever, 
and  on  the  28th  of  April,  1813,  it  was  with- 
drawn from  the  House  of  Commons.^ 

The  immediate  danger  to  the  patents  from 
the  third  theatre  prosecutors  was  averted.  An 
occasional  echo  of  the  contest  was  heard,^  but 
the  attempt  to  reach  theatrical  freedom  by  way 
of  the  Crown  or  Parliament  was,  for  the  time, 

^  Parliamentary  Debates,  1st  Series,  vol.  xxii,  pp.  96-101 ; 
London  Chronicle,  March  23,  1812  ;  Gentleman's  Magazine,  vol. 
82,  pt.  1,  pp.  267,  467;  European  Magazine,  vol.  61,  p.  225. 

2  European  Magazine,  vol.  63,  p.  523. 

8  See  The  Pamphleteer,  no.  iv,  pp.  370-395,  December,  1813, 
containing  a  plea  for  a  third  theatre,  by  Sir  James  Lawrence  ; 
also  Gentleman''s  Magazine,  March,  1811,  proposal  for  "  The 
Alfred  Theatre." 


246  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

given  up,  and  the  old  contest  between  the  winter 
and  the  summer  theatres  was  resumed.  The  pos- 
sibility of  a  struggle  of  an  entirely  different  sort 
had  also  made  its  appearance,  and,  in  time,  was 
destined  to  accomplish  what  the  bold  defenders 
of  the  third  theatre  idea  had  failed  to  do.  This 
was  the  guerrilla  warfare  between  the  minors 
and  majors  which  had  first  manifested  itself  in 
1807,  as  has  been  seen.  Fostered  by  a  Lord 
Chamberlain,  who,  on  principle,  was  opposed  to 
the  theatrical  monopoly,  these  lesser  establish- 
ments became  more  and  more  the  leading  factors 
in  the  solution  of  the  problem  which  had  puzzled 
the  heads  of  the  promoters  of  a  third  theatre  in 
1810-12. 


CHAPTER  X 

THE    RISE    OF    ENGLISH    OPERA,  AND    THE    WAR    OF 
ENCROACHMEMTS 

INTIMATELY  associated  with  the  struggle 
for  a  free  stage  in  London  is  the  history  of 
the  establishment  of  the  English  opera ;  for  by 
the  beginning  of  the  nineteenth  century  the  pat- 
entees had  grown  envious  of  every  species  of 
entertainment  that  in  any  way  resembled  a  the- 
atrical exhibition.  Furthermore,  although  thus 
far  they  had  rarely  exercised  the  privilege,  their 
patents  secured  to  them  a  monopoly  of  the  opera 
if  it  secured  exclusive  privileges  in  anything ; 
and  the  necessity  had  at  last  arisen  of  guard- 
ing even  the  unused  rights  claimed  by  them. 
Italian  opera  had  been  surrendered  by  the  two 
patent  houses,  almost  from  the  founding  of  Van- 
brugh's  Opera  House  in  the  Haymarket  (1704), 
and  the  terms  of  settlement  provided  by  the 
Opera  Arrangement  of  1792  gave  a  definite 
sanction  to  the  monopoly  of  foreign  opera  at  the 
King's  Theatre. 

In  1791,  Dr.  Arnold,  the  musical  composer, 
converted  a  portion  of  the  building  which  until 


248  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

the  founding  of  the  Royal  Academy  (1768) 
had  been  used  for  an  art  gallery,  into  a  thea- 
tre, and  intended  to  secure  a  license  to  open  it, 
but  was  thwarted  by  the  patentees.  This  was 
the  Lyceum.  A  few  years  after  this  (1802) 
Colonel  Greville  started  his  "  Eic-Nic  Society  " 
in  Tottenham  Street,*  and  two  years  later  made 
pi'oposals  to  the  Lord  Chamberlain  for  the 
establishment  of  a  theatre  for  music,  in  which 
nothing  but  English  talent  should  be  employed. 
This  fell  through,  as  we  have  seen,  but  Gre- 
ville still  nourished  his  pet  scheme  for  the 
native  opera.  Finally,  in  1809,  he  secured  from 
Lord  Dartmouth  a  license  for  English  opera 
in  music,  to  which  privilege,  after  a  short 
time,  dialogue  was  added,  it  being  understood  in 
the  extension  of  the  license  that  dialogue  and 
music  should  be  used  only  in  so  far  as  both  of 
them  should  make  out  an  operatic  entertainment. 
Greville  was  on  the  point  of  putting  his  license 
into  an  elaborate  execution,  by  purchasing  and 
fitting  up  the  Pantheon  in  Oxford  Street,  when 
Drury  Lane  Theatre  burnt  (February  24, 1809), 
at  which  time  Arnold  secured  a  license  similar 
to  his  own.^ 

There  is  a  curious  story  connected  with  George 

1  London  Chronicle,  February  20,  1802. 
^  See  Brougham's  speech  before  the  Privy  Council,  March 
26,  1810.    Account  of  Proceedings,  p.  86  sq. 


THE  RISE   OF  ENGLISH  OPERA         249 

III  and  the  founding  of  tlie  English  Opera 
House.  The  King  was  exceedingly  fond  of  mu- 
sic and  a  devoted  patron  of  the  art.  Dr.  Arnold 
was  organist  to  His  Majesty,  and,  in  1809,  it 
occurred  to  Samuel  James  Arnold,  son  of  Dr. 
Arnold,  to  take  advantage  of  the  circumstance 
to  obtain  from  the  Crown  permission  to  open  a 
new  theatre  for  the  especial  purpose  of  fostering 
the  English  opera.  A  prospectus  was  prepared, 
setting  forth  the  aims  of  the  undertaking,  a  copy 
of  which  had  been  previously  submitted  to  the 
Lord  Chamberlain.  The  project  pleased  the 
fancy  of  the  King,  the  license  was  accordingly 
issued,  and  the  English  opera  prepared  to  launch 
under  the  most  favorable  auspices.  As  the  li- 
cense was  first  issued,  no  limitation,  as  to  season, 
was  contained  therein.  The  zealous  Greville  at 
once  complained  that  he  had  prayed  for  a  privi- 
lege similar  to  that  in  Arnold's  license,  and  that 
the  Lord  Chamberlain  had  promised  him  that  if 
any  person  besides  the  proprietors  of  Drury  Lane 
and  Covent  Garden  should  be  invested  with  the 
privilege  of  opening  a  winter  theatre,  that 
person  should  be  Colonel  Greville.  Thereupon 
Lord  Dartmouth  hastily  summoned  Mr.  Arnold 
and  explained  that  Greville's  prior  claim  had 
been  overlooked  in  granting  Arnold  a  license 
for  the  entire  year,  at  the  same  time  acknowledg- 
ing the  privileges  which  Arnold's  license  gave 


250  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

him  of  performing  winter  and  summer.  The 
Lord  Chamberlain  extricated  himself  from  the 
dilemma  by  suggesting  that  Greville  and  Arnold 
divide  the  privileges  of  the  two  licenses  between 
themselves.  This  advice  was  followed,  Greville 
choosing  the  winter  season  for  his  operations, 
leaving  the  summer  months  to  Arnold.^ 

But  the  burning  of  the  Drury  Lane  Theatre 
materially  altered  these  plans.  Owing  to  this 
accident,  Arnold  and  Greville  deemed  it  advis- 
able to  join  their  licenses  and  open  only  one 
opera  house,  the  Pantheon  being  chosen  for 
the  purpose.  At  this  juncture  the  ready-witted 
Sheridan  nipped  the  movement  in  the  bud  by 
proposing  a  union  of  all  three  interests.  The 
advantages  to  all  parties  concerned  were  evident : 
Arnold  and  Greville  would  get  all  the  privileges 
of  the  Drury  Lane  license  added  to  their  own,  in 
addition  to  the  insurance  against  persecution  by 
the  patentees ;  while  Sheridan  would,  for  the 
time,  put  an  effectual  stop  to  the  English  opera 
scheme,  and  also  secure  a  house  for  his  burnt-out 
company.  The  three  licenses,  accordingly,  were 
merged  into  one,  and  the  Lyceum  was  opened 
for  the  remainder  of  the  winter  season  of  1809 
under  the  three   managers.    In  the   agreement 

1  Solicitor-General's  speech  in  behalf  of  Arnold  in  1831,  Lon- 
don Chronicle,  January  12,  1831 ;  see  also  Brougham's  speech 
before  the  Privy  Council,  1810. 


THE  RISE  OF  ENGLISH  OPERA         251 

arising  out  of  these  circumstances  the  licenses  of 
Arnold  and  Greville  were  distinctly  recited,  and 
their  right  to  keep  open  their  theatres  winter  and 
summer  was  not  denied.  Moreover,  it  should  be 
borne  in  mind  that  in  the  hearing  before  the 
Privy  Council  in  the  following  year  (1810), 
Arnold's  rights,  instead  of  being  questioned,  were 
wholly  admitted,  whatever  Sheridan's  motive  in 
so  doing. 

The  Drury  Lane  season  —  for  such  it  was  — 
at  the  Lyceum  closed  on  the  12th  of  June,  1809. 
Arnold,  on  the  7th  of  the  month,  had  made  a 
preliminary  announcement  that  he  would  open 
the  theatre  for  a  summer  season  of  operas  and 
ballets.  A  few  days  later,  the  following  adver- 
tisement appeared  in  the  public  prints : 

"  LYCEUM  THEATRE 

"  The  Public  are  respectfully  informed,  that 
the  period  for  which  the  Drury-lane  Company 
engaged  the  above  Theatre,  having  expired  —  the 
Theatre  will,  after  This  Evening  be  closed  for 
a  few  days,  in  order  that  the  new  decorations 
which  are  prepared  may  be  affixed  throughout 
the  house,  and  in  order  to  enable  the  Proprietors 
to  make  the  various  alterations  which  have  been 
proposed  to  afford  the  utmost  accommodation 
to  the  Public  within  the  Theatre,  as  well  as  by 
improved  facilities  of  ingress  and  egress.    After 


252  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

which  the  Theatre  (by  authority  of  the  Lord 
Chamberlain),  WILL  OPEN  for  the  Summer 
Season  with  an  entirely  new  COMIC  OPERA, 
and  a  GRAND  BALLET.  Particulars  of  which 
will  be  duly  announced.  A  spacious  new  Lobby 
will  be  opened  to  the  Public;  and  the  lower 
circle  of  Boxes,  enlarged  and  considerably  im- 
proved, will  be  appropriated  exclusively  to  Dress 
Company." 

The  date  for  opening  w^as  fixed  for  Jime  19, 
but  on  account  of  the  "  extensive  alterations  "  in 
the  theatre,  this  was  changed  to  June  22,*  from 
which  it  was  again  postponed  to  the  26th,  when 
the  new  venture  actually  started  off  with  Uj)  All 
JVight,  followed  by  Love  in  a  Tub.  The  adver- 
tisement ran,  "  The  Doors  to  be  open  at  Six 
o'clock,  and  begin  at  Seven  precisely.  Boxes 
5s.  Pit  3s.  Gallery  2s.  Upper  Gallery  Is."  The 
effort  was  favorably  received  by  the  public. 
The  convenient  size  of  the  theatre  was  especially 
commended,  the  contrast,  in  this  respect,  with 
the  winter  houses  being  remarked,  and  the  effect- 
iveness of  the  performance  attributed  to  this. 

The  operas  permitted  to  Arnold,  at  this  time, 
consisted  of  three  acts  only  and  might  be  per- 
formed as  at  the  patent  houses,  except  that  the 
dialogue  might  ^ot  be  converted  into  recitative. 

1  See  Morning  Chronicle  for  June  7,  10,  12, 13, 15, 16,  17,  19, 
24,  27,  1809 ;  London  Chronicle,  June  27,  1809. 


THE   RISE   OF   ENGLISH   OPERA         253 

The  after-piece  was,  at  the  period  under  consid- 
eration, confined  to  spectacles,  ballets,  or  pieces 
consisting  of  songs  and  recitative.  Something 
of  the  success  attending  the  first  night's  perform- 
ances at  the  Lyceum  was  due  to  the  notoriety 
which  the  Drury  Lane  Company  had  given  the 
place  during  the  previous  spring.  And  that  cir- 
cumstance contained  another  precedent,  the  con- 
sequence of  which  was  unforeseen  by  Sheridan, 
namely,  the  acting  of  the  regular  drama.  On  the 
opening  of  Arnold's  English  Opera  House,  Sheri- 
dan intimated  that  the  Lord  Chamberlain  had 
exceeded  his  authority  in  granting  the  license. 
The  Covent  Garden  managers  also  expostulated 
against  the  grant,  but  the  Earl  of  Dartmouth 
threatened  that  if  they  did  not  keep  quiet  on  the 
subject  he  would  extend  Arnold's  privileges.^ 
As  Arnold's  license  comprised  the  summer 
months  only,  it  would  seem  that  no  competition 
could  arise  between  the  Lyceum  and  the  patent 
houses,  but  rather  with  the  Little  Theatre  in  the 
Haymarket.  Viewed  in  another  light,  there  were 
now  two  summer  theatres  instead  of  one  to  resist 
the  encroachments  of  the  winter  houses,  and  for 
the  next  few  years  the  vicissitudes  of  the  Hay- 
market  and  Lyceum,  or  English  Opera  House, 
run  parallel  and  have  a  common  interest. 

^  Oulton,  History  of  Theatres  of  London,  iii,  93,  94.    Oulton's 
account  is  contemporaneous. 


254  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

The  summer  season  of  1810  opened  at  the 
Lyceum  on  June  4,  when  Arnold  put  on  the 
musical  farce  Hit  or  31iss,  borrowed  from  Drury 
Lane.  It  is  well  to  note  this  introduction  of  the 
musical  yarce,  as  the  victory  for  free  competition 
in  theatricals  was  ultimately  won  by  the  aggre- 
gate effect  of  such  slight  innovations  as  this. 
The  same  year,  Colman  petitioned  the  Prince 
Regent  either  to  oblige  the  winter  theatres  to 
close  earlier  than  usual,  or  to  extend  the  time 
of  performances  at  the  Haymarket.  The  latter 
alternative  was  granted,  and  Colman  obtained 
leave  to  continue  to  October  15.  But  the  con- 
cession proved  useless.  The  Haymarket  closed 
at  the  time  specified  in  the  old  license  (Septem- 
ber 15),  the  reason  being  that  "so  many  obsta- 
cles now  present  themselves  against  the  enjoy- 
ment of  the  grant."  ^  The  chief  "  obstacle  "  was 
that  Covent  Garden  opened  on  the  10th  of  Sep- 
tember, and  the  Haymarket  performers  were 
forced  to  leave  Colman  on  that  date  in  order  to 
renew  their  articles  at  the  patent  house.^ 

Colman  now  determined  to  repeat  the  experi- 
ment of  1803,  of  opening  his  theatre  with  an 
independent  company.    Once  more  the  provinces 

^  London  Chronicle,  September  17,  1810. 

2  European  Magazine,  vol.  58,  p.  218.  Arnold  also  applied 
for  and  got  an  extension  of  his  season  to  October  15.  In  1812 
he  ran  up  to  October  9.  —  Oulton,  iii,  142. 


THE  RISE   OF  ENGLISH   OPERA         255 

were  invaded  for  recruits,  and  on  the  15tli  of 
May,  1811,  the  Little  Theatre  opened  despite 
the  patent  houses.  Some  of  the  actors  had  never 
seen  service  on  any  stage,  but  that  mattered 
little  in  comparison  with  the  main  issue.  "  Yet 
what  can  the  manager  of  this  Theatre  do  ? " 
breaks  out  the  incensed  editor  of  the  "  Dramatic 
Censor."  "  When  Foote  and  the  elder  Colman 
had  it,  they  were  enabled  to  open  by  the  middle 
of  May,  because  that  was  the  period  when  the 
winter  managers  felt  it  expedient  to  repose  from 
their  dramatic  toil ;  and  then  an  Edwin,  a 
Parsons,  a  Palmer,  and  a  Bannister,  were  glad  to 
enlist  under  the  banners  of  the  minor  chief,  and 
sweat  and  laugh  during  the  summer  solstice ! 
But  tempora  mutantnr.  Power  hath  become  more 
powerful,  and  the  Winter  5ats  have  usurped, 
the  cheese  of  the  Muses,  and  left  the  mere  par- 
ings to  solace  the  mice  in  the  dog  days ! "  ^ 
Nevertheless,  the  Haymarket  continued  its  per- 
formances until  the  16th  of  October  ;  although 
the  last  night  was  "by  permission."  Elliston,  in 
delivering  tlie  farewell  address,  spoke  of  the 
season  as  "  an  experiment,  .  .  .  adopted  to  save 
their  interests  from  annihilation." 

In  the    following  year  (1812),  petition   was 
made,  and  granted,  for  an  extension  of  the  Hay- 

^  Dramatic    Censor,  May,    1811,  col.  264,  September   and 
October,  cols.  3G9,  403. 


256  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

market  license  to  seven  months.  This  license 
was  renewed  until  1822,  when  it  was  reduced  to 
the  original  term  of  four  months.^  But  the  new 
privileges  were  of  little  value  to  the  proprietors 
of  the  Haymarket  Theatre.  A  series  of  disgrace- 
ful rows  among  the  partners,  a  King's  Bench 
suit  which  deprived  Colman  of  his  personal  lib- 
erty, together  with  the  encroachments  of  the 
winter  houses,  combined  to  ruin  the  prospects 
of  the  theatre,  which  was  not  open  for  a  single 
night  in  the  summer  of  1813.  The  next  season 
it  was  opened  for  a  short  period  only,  and,  in 
1815,  for  two  months,  not  commencing  that  year 
until  July  17,  as  Drury  Lane  continued  up  to 
July  13,  and  Co  vent  Garden  to  July  20.^ 

During  these  years  of  depression  and  gloom  at 
the  Haymarket,  tjie  English  Opera  House  had 
been  experiencing  a  harvest  of  successes.  On 
the  closing  night  (September  15)  of  the  summer 
season  of  1815,  the  annual  address  (delivered 
by  Raymond)  referred  to  the  seven  successful 
seasons  of  the  theatre,  and  announced  that  the 
proprietor  was  making  arrangements  to  build 
"an  entirely  new,  airy,  and  commodious  theatre," 

1  I  give  this  on  the  authority  of  a  reported  speech  of  Sir  C. 
Wetherell,  made  in  the  Chancellor's  Court  in  1831  in  the  case 
of  the  Majors  vs.  the  Minors.  See  Morning  Chronicle  for  Jan- 
uary 26,  1831.  According  to  Oulton,  iii,  242,  the  Haymarket 
license  was  extended  to  eight  months  in  1812. 

^  European  Magazine,  July  and  September,  1815. 


THE  RISE  OF  ENGLISH  OPERA        257 

to  be  ready  for  the  opening  of  the  ensuing  sum- 
mer. Splendor  was  not  promised,  but  comfort, 
safety,  and  convenience  were.  These  promises 
were  faithfully  redeemed,  if  the  published  de- 
scriptions of  the  theatre  by  the  architect  (Beazley) 
is  a  criterion.^  On  the  site  of  the  old  Lyceum  in 
the  Strand,  the  new  English  Opera  House  was 
erected.  The  work  on  it  was  pushed,  as  Arnold 
intended  to  put  the  already  accepted  interpreta- 
tion on  his  license,  to  act  any  season  of  the  year, 
and,  if  possible,  to  open  his  new  theatre  about 
Easter,  1816.^  But  the  patentees  were  unable  to 
brook  any  inroads  of  this  nature.  On  the  12th 
of  October  (1815)  the  Drury  Lane  Committee 
was  called  together  to  hear  the  annual  report. 
The  bulk  of  this  is  taken  up  with  the  financial 
condition  of  the  concern  (which  was  in  no  wise 
flattering,  the  report  showing  a  deficit  of  £19,387 
for  the  year,  with  a  gross  shortage  of  £68,294). 
But  a  point  of  peculiar  interest  is  contained  in 
the  clause  calling  the  attention  of  the  meeting  to 
the  announcement  of  "  the  proprietor  of  a  Sum- 
mer Establishment^''  to  pursue  his  speculations 
to  an  indefinite  extent.    The  committee  reported 

^  Oulton,  iii,  177-183 ;  London  Examiner,  September  17, 
1815. 

'^  Colonel  Greville,  on  the  receipt  of  some  real  or  imagined 
slig-ht,  had  retired  from  the  partnership  in  1810,  leaving  Arnold 
in  undivided  possession  of  the  English  opera  for  winter  and 


258  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

that  the  Covent  Garden  and  Drury  Lane  pro- 
prietors had  lost  no  time  in  petitioning  the 
Prince  Regent  (through  the  Lord  Chamberlain) 
against  any  invasion  of  their  rights.^ 

In  spite  of  this  threatening  forecast,  Arnold 
pursued  his  purpose  to  open  in  April.  His  li- 
cense was  originally  issued  in  February,  and, 
being  an  annual  license,  he  argued  that  it  was 
good  f I'om  February  to  the  next  February.  The 
influence  of  the  patentees  against  him  was  too 
great,  however,  and  effectually  prevented  the 
operation  of  his  unexpired  license.  Arnold, 
therefore,  was  compelled  to  issue  the  following 
announcement  to  the  public  ("  Morning  Chron- 
cle,"  April  2,  1816)  : 

"  Theatre  Royal,  English  Opera  House, 
March  30th,   1816. 

"Notice  is  hereby  given  to  all  parties  inter- 
ested, that  it  was  the  intention  of  the  Propri- 
etor to  have  opened  the  new  Theatre  on  Mon- 
day the  15th  of  April  next  ensuing  under  the 
powers  of  his  unexpired  License  ;  but  that  in 
consequence  of  a  Petition  presented  to  his  Royal 
Highness  the  Prince  Regent,  by  the  Patentees 
of  the  Winter  Theatres,  he  has  received  from 
the  Right  Honorable  Lord  Chambei'lain  an  inti- 
mation that  the  measure  of  opening  the  Theatre, 

1  European  Magazine,  October,  1815. 


THE  RISE  OF  ENGLISH.  OPERA        259 

whilst  the  Petition  was  yet  under  consideration, 
would  be  opposed  by  his  Lordship. 

"  The  Proprietor  of  the  English  Opera  License, 
with  due  respect  to  his  Lordship's  high  author- 
ity, has  therefore  considered  it  proper  to  delay 
the  opening  of  the  Theatre  until  further  notice." 

After  numerous  delays,  Arnold  finally  suc- 
ceeded in  gaining  the  Lord  Chamberlain's  grant 
for  four  months,  and,  thus  restricted,  the  new 
Opera  House  in  the  Strand  was  announced 
to  open  on  the  15th  of  June  (1816).  Li  the 
opening  address  (written  by  Arnold  and  delivered 
by  Miss  Kelly)  j)ointed  reference  was  made  to 
the  venom  of  the  patentees,  in  these  lines  : 

"  Our  Humble  Edifice  triumphant  rose 
In  spite  of  threatening  flames  ^  and  Patent  foes  ! 
The  Foes  who'd  stint  your  pleasure — but  in  vain, 
To  Covent  Garden  and  to  Drury  Lane, 
Who  kindly  wish  to  prove,  as  it  appears, 
Monopolizers  of  your  smiles  and  tears  ! 
Who  love  you  all  so  dearly  that  they  swear 
You  shall  go  nowhere  —  if  you  don't  go  there. 
Pray,  how  d'  ye  like  our  House  ?    Is  't  snug  and  easy  ? 
Upon  our  life  we  've  done  our  best  to  please  ye  ! 
You  all  can  hear  and  see,  I  hope  —  Yes  — kll  ! 
Those  are  rare  virtues  of  a  House  that 's  small ! 

^  Alluding  to  a  conflagration  in  Exeter  Court,  where  Ar- 
nold sustained  a  severe  loss  to  ornaments,  interior  trappings, 
etc.,  which  were  being  made  ready  for  his  new  theatre.  It 
was  in  an  uninliabited  house,  and  the  cause  of  the  fire  is 
unknown. 


260  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

For  such,  are  Actors  ever  bound  to  pray, 

Where  you  can  see  the  Stage  and  hear  the  Play. 

Where  you  with  ease  can  mark  our  real  faces, 

Without  the  aid  of  glasses  or  grimaces  ! 

And  each  inflection  of  the  voice  is  heard. 

Your  ears  preserved,  and  our  poor  lungs  are  spared  !"* 

So  bitter  was  the  feeling  on  the  part  of  the 
patentees  against  Arnold's  past  success  and 
bright  prospects  at  the  Lyceum,  that  the  per- 
formers at  Drury  Lane  were  threatened  with  a 
forfeiture  of  their  engagements  if  they  returned 
to  the  new  Lyceum.  It  was  for  this  reason  that 
Raymond  resigned  his  position  as  acting-manager 
at  the  English  Opera  House.  Kinnaird  of  the 
Sub-Committee  at  Drury  Lane  was  especially 
vindictive,  and  seems  to  have  been  chiefly  re- 
sponsible for  the  general  quarrel  which  was  pre- 
cipitated through  his  endeavors  to  intimidate  his 
performers  into  abandoning  Arnold's  theatre.^ 
As  a  consequence  of  Kinnaird's  menaces,  most 
of  the  jserformers  at  the  Lyceum  were  new ; 
Dublin,  Edinburgh,  and  Bath  had  been  brought 
into  requisition  to  make  good  the  deficiencies 
caused  by  resignations.  Three,  however,  of  the 
old  performers  (Mr.  Gattie,  Mrs.  Orger,  and 
Miss  Kelly)  disregarded  the  prohibition  of  the 

^  European  Magazine,  June,  1816;  London  Chronicle,  June 
17,  1816. 

2  European  Magazine,  September,  1816. 


THE   RISE   OF  ENGLISH  OPERA         261 

patentees,  and  braved  the  consequences.  The 
result  was  a  public  airing  of  the  dissensions  of 
the  managers  in  a  rather  fierce,  and  decidedly 
ill-tempered,  paper  war,  —  the  greatest  since  the 
early  days  of  the  Royalty. 

The  quarrel  was  brought  to  a  head  in  the 
autumn,  at  the  time  of  the  opening  of  the  winter 
houses.  On  the  evening  of  September  9,  1816, 
previous  to  the  commencement  of  the  perform- 
ance of  Rich  and  Poor  at  the  Lyceum,  Bartley 
(successor  to  Raymond  as  acting-manager)  came 
forward  and  read  a  rather  unexpected  address 
of  some  length  from  the  proprietor,  Mr.  Arnold. 
All  personal  injuries  sustained  from  the  opposi- 
tion of  the  patentees  were  passed  by,  and  the 
grievances  of  the  unoffending  performers  taken 
up.  These,  he  declared,  "  are  deprived  of  the 
means  of  obtaining  a  part  of  their  subsistence, 
since  they  are  even  prohibited  from  appearing  be- 
fore you  at  this  theatre  on  the  alternate  nights, 
when  there  are  no  representations  at  the  others, 
and  when  they  consequently  receive  no  salary. 

"At  the  opening  of  the  New  English  Opera 
House,  this  season,  the  Proprietors  of  Co  vent 
Garden  Theatre  prohibited  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Liston 
(who  had  still  a  season  of  their  engagement  here 
unexpired)  from  acting  in  this  place.  To  this 
unexampled  act  of  rigour  and  restriction  they 
were  compelled  to  submit,  in  apprehension  of 


262  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

the  infliction  of  heavy  penalties,  or  perhaps,  dis- 
missal from  that  Theatre,  although  their  engage- 
ment to  the  Proj)rietors  of  the  English  Opera 
was  made  three  years  ago  (and  acted  upon  dur- 
ing two  seasons)  without  the  slightest  hint  of 
objection  on  the  part  of  the  Covent  Garden 
Proprietors. 

"  Some  accommodation  in  regard  to  Perform- 
ers was,  however,  permitted  by  the  Sub-Com- 
mittee of  Drury  Lane,  because  the  Proprietors 
of  this  Theatre  had  the  power  of  offering  them 
an  equivalent.  This  equivalent  consisted  (by  a 
priority  of  engagement)  in  the  valuable  services 
of  a  young  Lady  who  never  appears  upon  these 
or  any  other  boards  without  receiving  the  warm- 
est testimonials  of  public  approbation  and  es- 
teem." 

The  address  then  stated  that  the  accommoda- 
tion alluded  to  had  been  withdrawn,  and  that 
the  Lyceum  proprietor  had  been  unable  to  elicit 
an  answer  from  the  Drury  Lane  Committee  to 
a  proposal  to  renew  the  arrangement.  Arnold 
did  not  accuse  the  Drury  Lane  Sub- Committee 
collectively,  but  held  a  single  individual  respon- 
sible for  the  situation.  From  the  person  referred 
to  (meaning  Kinnaird),  Arnold  averred  that  he 
had  received  a  verbal  communication  to  the  effect 
that  none  of  the  Drury  Lane  performers  would 
be  allowed  to  act  at  the  Lyceum. 


THE   RISE   OF   ENGLISH   OPERA        263 

This  long  recital  of  complaints  was  justified 
by  the  apology  offered  to  the  audience  for  the 
non-appearance  of  Mrs.  Orger  and  Mrs.  Harlowe, 
whose  names  appeared  on  the  play-bills  for  the 
evening,  and  who,  it  was  alleged,  had  "  received 
intimation  that  to  perform  here  would  be  at  their 
own  peril,  and  would  perhaps  subject  them  to 
such  severe  penalties  as  they  dare  not  encounter 
the  risk  of  incurring."  The  following  letter  ad- 
dressed to  the  manager  was  then  produced  and 
read  to  the  audience :  ^ 

"  My  DEAR  Sir:  It  is  with  extreme  regret  I 
am  compelled  to  inform  you,  that  Mr.  Kinnaird 
has  forbidden  my  performing  any  longer  at  the 
English  Opera;  intimating,  that,  if,  neglectful 
of  his  injunction,  I  should  appear  there  this 
evening,  a  heavy  fine  would  be  exacted. 

"  I  am,  etc.,  M.  A.  Orger. 

"  Sept.  9,  1816.*' 

The  situation  was  further  aggravated  by  the 
fact  that  Drury  Lane  was  closed.  While  read- 
ing the  communication  from  Arnold  to  the 
public,  Bartley  was  frequently  interrupted  by 
applause,  and  cries  of  "  Shame  !    shame  !  "    But 

^  An  account  of  this  singular  performance,  together  with  the 
text  of  Arnold's  Address,  appeared  in  the  Morning  Chronicle, 
September  10,  1816.  The  succeeding  numbers  of  that  journal 
contain  the  rest  of  the  correspondence. 


264  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

the  affair  was  not  to  end  here.  On  the  day 
following  the  publication  of  these  proceedings 
at  the  Lyceum,  Douglas  Kinnaird  appeared  in 
one  of  the  public  prints  in  vindication  of  his 
action  in  forbidding  performers  to  engage  at  the 
English  Opera  House.  In  this  explanation  a 
letter  is  quoted  from  H.  Harris  of  the  Covent 
Garden  management,  in  which  is  cited  precedent 
against  permitting  actors  of  the  patent  houses 
engaging  at  other  theatres,  even  during  the  re- 
cess. Referring  to  the  insinuations  contained  in 
Mrs.  Orger's  letter,  Kinnaird  called  that  lady's 
attention  to  the  fact  that  the  only  conversation 
he  had  had  with  her  on  the  subject  of  her  per- 
forming at  the  Lyceum  was  on  the  Friday  prior  to 
the  Monday  of  her  appearance  in  the  Lyceum  bills. 
The  occasion  of  that  conversation  was  an  appli- 
cation of  Mrs.  Orger  to  Kinnaird  for  permission 
to  continue  performing  at  the  Lyceum  on  the 
nights  when  Drury  Lane  was  closed.  "  This  I 
told  you  was  impossible  for  me  to  grant,"  con- 
tinues Kinnaird,  "as,  if  we  permitted  our  per- 
formers to  exert  their  talents  against  Covent 
garden  theatre,  when  we  were  shut,  they  would 
do  the  like  by  us  —  and  that  then  the  benefits 
proposed,  by  our  playing  alternate  nights,  would 
be  lost  —  and  we  might  as  well  let  our  perform- 
ers appear  before  the  public  at  our  theatre  every 
night."   Attention  is  also  called  to  the  articles 


THE  RISE  OF  ENGLISH  OPERA         265 

of  agreement,  "  which  you  and  all  the  performers 
of  the  winter  theatres  signed.  The  salary  given 
is  for  the  exclusive  services  of  the  performers  at 
this  theatre.  I  recollect  also  explaining  to  you 
that  the  Haymarket  received  the  accommodation 
till  next  Saturday  [Sept.  14]  from  old  usage 
aloney  In  the  same  issue  of  the  "Morning 
Chronicle"  (September  11,  1816),  "A  Play-go- 
ing Man  "  justifies  the  attitude  of  the  patentees, 
first,  on  the  simple  grounds  of  rivalry,  and,  sec- 
ondly, because,  when  actors  were  engaged  at  two 
theatres,  at  the  same  time,  the  "business"  was 
interfered  with. 

Arnold  returned  at  once  to  the  attack,  de- 
nouncing Kinnaird's  conduct  towards  the  actors 
as  tyrannical  and  oppi'essive,  a  course  which  had 
not  the  sanction  of  the  entire  Sub-Committee 
of  Drury  Lane,  but  was  the  individual  action  of 
Kinnaird.  It  was  denied  that  it  had  been  the 
custom  to  permit  no  regularly  engaged  performer 
to  play  at  any  other  theatre  after  the  opening  of 
the  winter  season,  —  as  Harris  had  asserted  in  his 
letter  to  Kinnaird.  "Formerly,  indeed,"  pursues 
Arnold,  "  no  such  permission  was  requisite.  But 
during  the  last  eight  years,  since  the  winter 
establishments  have  protracted  their  seasons  of 
performances,  .  .  .  the  performers  have  .  .  . 
been  constantly  allowed  the  privilege  of  acting 
at  the  Haymarket  Theatre  before  the  closing,  and 


266  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

after  the  opening  of  the  winter  theatres."  Ar- 
nold's position  is  sustained  by  the  following 
interesting  extract  from  Kaymond's  "  Life  of 
Elliston  "  (pp.  234,  235)  : 

"  In  the  old  times,  the  Hay  market  Theatre  was 
open  some  ten  days  before  the  close  of  the  winter 
houses.  During  these  ten  days  there  was  but  a 
skeleton  company  at  the  former,  until  the  great 
patentees  gave  up  their  flesh  and  blood,  by 
which  it  was  clothed.  Many,  and  frequently 
ridiculous,  were  the  shifts  to  which  this  anato- 
mized body  was  subject,  in  the  short  interval. 
One  circumstance  occurred,  which,  at  the  first 
blush  (and  verily  it  was  of  a  character  to  raise 
one),  would  appear  positively  impracticable.  It 
was  that  of  Farley  acting  an  important  part  in 
the  play  of  Covent  Garden,  and  also  at  the 
Haymarket,  on  the  same  night ;  the  two  plays^ 
be  it  remembered,  being  the  first  pieces  of  the 
entertainments  at  both  establishments. 

"  At  Covent  Garden  the  curtain  rose  at  half 
past  six  o'clock,  and  in  the  Haymarket  at  seven ; 
at  the  former,  Farley  was  cast  into  one  of 
Macbeth's  witches,  and  at  the  latter,  in  the  part 
of  Sir  Philip  Modelove,  in  the  comedy  of  A 
Bold  Stroke  for  a  Wfe. 

"  The  dove-tailing  of  this  remarkable  night's 
performance  was  .  .  .  accomplished  "  by  means  of 


THE   RISE   OF   ENGLISH   OPERA         267 

a  hackney-coach,  furnished  with  all  the  necessary 
habiliments  of  a  dressing-room,  and  a  servant, 
who  assisted  the  actor  to  make  the  alterations 
for  the  part  next  to  be  represented,  as  the  coach 
passed  back  and  forth  between  the  playhouses. 
During  one  of  these  trips,  for  the  last  scene  at 
Covent  Garden,  the  coach,  in  turning  a  corner, 
upset.  "  Half  witch  and  half  baronet  —  poor 
Farley  was  extricated  from  that  door  which  for- 
tune had  thrown  uppermost,  and  never  actor 
surely  made  an  appearance  to  more  general 
applause." 

The  wordy  warfare  between  the  managers  con- 
tinued for  a  week,  the  public  occasionally  taking 
sides.  On  the  whole,  the  facts  adduced  against 
the  patentees  on  this  occasion  were  anything 
but  complimentary  to  their  conduct.  To  admit 
that  they  were  jealous  of  the  English  Opera 
House,  by  withdrawing  the  best  performers  from 
it,  was  to  declare  that  there  was  no  particular 
distinction  attaching  to  the  character  of  the  per- 
formances at  the  patent  houses ;  and  that,  after 
all,  it  was  the  actor  that  drew  the  audience  and 
gave  fame  to  a  theatre,  whether  it  were  Drury 
Lane  or  Saddler's  Wells.  Herein  lay  the  secret 
of  the  encroachments  of  the  winter  houses,  and 
the  "  lifting "  of  the  best  actors  from  the  sum- 
mer theatres.  Herein,  too,  lay  a  suggestion  to 
the  managers  of  the  minor  concerns,  namely,  to 


268  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

make  their  best  actors  managers  and  proprietors, 
so  that  the  patent  houses  could  not  buy  them 
off.  This  largely  accounts  for  the  unmolested 
operations  and  successes  of  Foote ;  and,  when 
the  fact  became  practically  apparent  among  the 
minors,  it  did  more  towards  weakening  the 
monopoly  than  all  the  correspondence  wars, 
public  addresses,  and  occasional  prologues. 

One  other  fact  was  slowly  dawning  on  the 
minds  of  the  enemies  of  the  theatrical  patents, 
and  this  contest  between  the  patentees  and 
Arnold  served  to  emphasize  its  importance:  if 
any  sort  of  winning  competition  (or,  rather,  re- 
taliation) was  to  be  waged  with  the  monopoly, 
the  minors  must  adopt  the  tactics  of  the  pat- 
entees and  invade  the  provinces  of  the  enemy. 
They  must  secure  extended  seasons  ;  they  must 
pay  higher  salaries  for  performers  than  the 
winter  houses  could  afford ;  they  must  adapt 
their  exhibitions  to  meet  the  demands  of  pub- 
lic taste,  and  at  the  same  time  fulfill  the  legal 
requirements.  These  outlines  of  attack  and  de- 
fense were  still  hazy,  but  they,  or  their  equiva- 
lents, were  sure  to  take  form  as  soon  as  the  right 
man  should  appear  to  give  them  effect. 

Arnold  was  materially  worsted  by  the  crusade 
carried  on  against  his  new  Opera  House.  It  was 
a  waste  of  time  for  him  to  urge  that  the  "  theat- 
rical community  has  undergone  a  great  revolu- 


THE  RISE  OF  ENGLISH  OPERA         269 

tion  since  the  laws  were  established  for  the 
governance  "  of  the  patent  houses.  Everybody 
knew  that.  The  fact  of  the  monopoly  remained, 
and  it  was  useless  to  argue  the  point  with  the 
patentees  on  the  abstract  principle  of  benevo- 
lence and  generosity.  The  Lyceum  was  com- 
pelled to  close  on  the  5th  of  October,  owing  to 
the  opening  of  the  winter  houses.  Bartley  spoke 
the  final  address,  in  the  course  of  which  he 
stated  that  "  the  unexpected  limitation,  which 
has  been  imposed  on  the  licence  to  this  Theatre, 
has  rendered  abortive  the  best  exertions  of  the 
Proprietor,  so  far  as  relates  to  a  fair  and  just 
view  to  his  personal  advantage,  .  .  .  He  has 
had  to  contend  with  powerful  enemies ;  and 
those  enemies  have  hitherto  so  far  triumphed, 
as  to  deprive  him  of  a  large  portion  of  talent  as 
well  as  a  large  part  of  the  means  of  encourage- 
ing  and  rewarding  it."  ^ 

Fortuitous  circumstances  at  this  time  gave 
the  summer  theatres  a  temporary  revenge.  In 
April,  1817,  owing,  for  whatever  ultimate  reason, 
to  the  lack  of  opportunity  offered  by  the  Co- 
vent  Garden  manager  to  his  talent,  Charles 
Mathews  left  the  winter  theatre  and  engaged  at 
the  Little  Theatre  in  the  Haymarket  for  the 
summer  season.^    The  following  year,   adapting 

1  European  Magazine  and  London  Review,  October,  1816. 
"  Mathews  made  his  first  appearance   at  Drury  Lane   in 


270  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

one  of  Foote's  eccentricities,  he  made  his  first 
appearance  "  At  Home  "  at  the  English  Opera 
House  (April  2,  1818),  and,  for  forty  nights, 
depending  on  his  sole  efforts,  he  gave  to  large 
audiences  a  "  series  of  entertainments,  which 
succeeded  in  exciting  peals  of  laughter  from  the 
besinning:  to  the  end."  This  series  of  mono- 
logues  was  of  a  far  higher  type  of  dramatic  art, 
and  approached  legitimate  comedy  more  closely 
than  did  the  efforts  at  mimicry  to  which 
the  Covent  Garden  management  had  confined 
Mathews.  But  the  interpretation  of  the  regular 
drama,  the  exclusive  privilege  of  the  patent 
houses,  was  invariably  based  on  dialogue,  what- 
ever else  entered  into  the  definition.  The  pat- 
entees, therefore,  had  no  power  to  interfere  with 
Mathews's  successes.  The  first  season  of  these 
entertainments  concluded  on  the  16th  of  June. 
The  strained  relations  between  the  patentees 
and  all  others  who  dared  venture  on  any  species 
of  theatrical  entertainment  may  be  seen  from 
Mathews's  farewell  on  the  closing  night : 

"  I    beg  to    state  distinctly,"    he    said,  "  that 

1804,  with  which  company  he  remained  until  1812,  when, 
failing  to  agree  with  the  aeting'-manager  (T.  Sheridan),  he 
withdrew  from  Drury  Lane,  traveled  for  nine  months,  re- 
turned to  London  (October,  1812),  and  engaged  for  five  years 
at  Covent  Garden.  Discontented  with  the  narrow  range  of 
characters  given  him,  he  broke  the  engagement  as  stated 
above.    European  Magazine,  vol.  73,  pp.  283-287. 


THE  RISE  OF  ENGLISH  OPERA        271 

while  I  am  advised  that  my  performances  are 
within  the  strict  letter  of  the  law,  no  fear  shall 
deter  me  from  proceeding-,  and  that  I  will 
resist  strenuously  and  firmly  any  measures 
that  may  be  pursued  to  support  an  injurious 
monopoly  to  my  injury  ;  and  that  I  shall  double 
all  the  energies  of  my  resistance  from  the  recol- 
lection that  I  am  contending  in  the  cause  of  the 
public,  who  have  no  right  to  be  curtailed  of 
their  lawful  amusements,  or  to  be  told  by  pat- 
entees, '  if  you  won't  come  to  laugh  with  us,  we 
shall  take  care  that  you  shall  not  go  to  laugh 
elsewhere.' "  ^ 

And  at  the  end  of  the  regular  summer  season 
at  the  Opera  House  (October  5,  1818),  the  pro- 
prietor expressed  the  hope  that,  "  without  in- 
fringing on  the  supposed  rights  of  patent  monop- 
olies, he  may  occasionally  be  enabled  to  invite 
you  here  with  such  performances  and  exhibitions 
as  the  law  alloios"  ^  alluding,  no  doubt,  to  the 
"At  Home"  entertainments. 

The  encroachments  of  the  winter  houses  not 
only  continued  but  were  extended.  Drury  Lane 
did  not  close  until  the  30th  of  June  in  1818, 
while  Covent  Garden  kept  open  until  the  mid- 
dle of  July.^    At  the  close  of  the  Haymarket's 

1  European  Magazine,  June,  1818. 

2  Ibid.  vol.  74,  p.  355. 

3  London  Chronicle,  July  16,  17,  1818. 


272  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

season  in  1817  it  was  announced  that  the  Little 
Theatre  would,  the  ensuing  year,  take  advantage 
of  the  entire  limit  of  its  license  (seven  months);^ 
but  July  15  (1818)  was  the  earliest  date  it 
could  open.  Each  year  the  old  complaint  was 
poured  into  the  public  ear  concerning  "those 
mightier  powers  against  whose  strength  our 
weakness  must  give  way."  ^  The  contest  was 
rapidly  approaching  a  climax.  The  season  of 
1819  -  20  at  Drury  Lane  did  not  end  until 
July  8,  and  at  Covent  Garden  until  the  17th. 
The  former  reopened  on  the  15th  of  August. 
The  vexation  caused  to  Arnold,  of  the  English 
Opera  House,  by  this  palpable  invasion  of  his 
interests  was  too  great  to  be  contained.  His 
feeling:  of  indio-nation  found  vent  in  the  follow- 
ing  manifesto  : 

"  THE  WINTER  THEATRES 

"  Since  the  Patentees  of  the  Winter  Theatres 
incessantly  complain  of  the  encroachments  of 
other  Theatres  ;  and  appeal  by  Petition  against 
those  that  open  under  the  Lord  Chamberlain's 

^  The  extended  privileges  had  been  in  disuse  so  long  that 
it  is  doubtful  whether  it  would  have  been  allowed  to  be  exer- 
cised, even  if  the  winter  houses  had  not,  by  their  encroach- 
ments, prevented  it.  This  view  is  sustained  by  the  fact  that 
the  seven  months  privilege  was  renewed  in  1S20. 

2  London  Chronicle,  September  14, 1819 ;  ibid.  September  16, 
1817 ;  European  Magazine,  vol.  72,  p.  259  ;  ibid.  vol.  76,  p.  264. 


THE  RISE  OF  ENGLISH  OPERA         273 

Licences  and  by  Prosecutions  against  those  that 
act  under  the  Licences  of  the  Magistrates,*  it  is 
time  the  attention  of  the  Legislature,  and  of  the 
Publick,  should  be  called  to  the  gradual  en- 
croachments made  by  these  great  establishments 
on  their  more  limited  and  more  defenceless 
neighbours. 

"  In  Garrick's  time,  the  Winter  Theatres 
played  never  more  than  150  or  160  nights  in 
the  year ;  till  within  the  last  ten  years,  they 
never  exceeded  an  average  of  200  nights ;  open- 
ing in  the  middle  of  September,  and  closing 
early  in  June.  They  have  now  gradually  extended 
their  performances  from  the  heginnin(j  of  Sep- 
tember to  towards  the  end  of  July,  leaving  only 
an  interval  of  six  or  seven  weeks,  when  the  Town 
is  comparatively  empty  (and  in  the  dog-days),  for 
the  summer  Theatres  to  reap  their  little  scanty 
harvest. 

"  The  Theatre  Royal  Drury  Lane  has  now  re- 
opened in  the  middle  of  August,  leaving  the 
summer  Theatres  twenty-one  Nights  only  free 
from  an  oppressive  coveteousness,  which  it  ap- 
pears can  only  be  bounded  by  the  ruin  of  more 
humble  rivals. 

"  The  attention  of  the  Publick  is  now  respect- 

1  The  allusion  is  to  the  petition  of  the  patentees  against  the 
Olympic  and  Sans  Pareil,  1818.  This  will  be  considered  in  the 
next  chapter. 


274  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

fully  called  to  this  brief  statement ;  and  their 
continued  patronage  earnestly  solicited  to  the 
Theatre  Royal  English  Opera  House,  in  which 
the  most  animated  exertions  will  continue  to  be 
made  to  merit  their  favour." 

The  only  effect  this  had  on  the  '  Great  Lessee,' 
Elliston,  who  had  taken  charge  of  Drury  Lane 
Theatre  in  1819,  was  the  following  characteristic 
reply : 

"  The  Patentees  can  not  condescend  to  enter 
into  a  competition  of  scurrility,  which  is  only 
fitted  for  Minor  Theatres  —  what  their  powers 
really  are,  will  be,  without  any  public  appeal, 
legally  decided  in  November  next,  and  any  gas- 
conade can  only  be  supposed  to  be  caused  by 
cunning  or  poverty."  ^ 

Arnold  retorted  to  this  in  the  public  prints 
and  in  "  a  new  extempore,  temporary  sketch," 
entitled  Patent  Seasons  (written  by  R.  B. 
Peake).  The  audience  showed  its  sympathy  on 
the  side  of  the  summer  house,  for  it  "  applauded 
most  vociferously  "  the  hits  at  the  winter  manager. 
The  dramatic  critic  in  the  "  London  Review  " 
(August,  1820)  said  of  the  performance  and  of 
the  circumstances  calling  it  forth :  "  As  a  tem- 
porary trifle,  it  well  deserved  its  favourable 
reception,  but  we  fear,  that  something  even  more 

1  European  Magazine,  July  and  August,  1820 ;  Lady''s  Mag- 
azine, August,  1820. 


THE  RISE  OF  ENGLISH  OPERA         275 

than  being  so  satirized  or  laughed  at,  must  be 
adopted,  to  bring  the  Patent  Seasons  into  a  more 
reasonable  compass." 

The  "Examiner"  (August  27, 1820)  treated 
the  matter  in  a  somewhat  different  way,  but, 
though  friendly  to  Elliston  of  Drury  Lane,  it  was 
outspoken  on  the  subject  of  free  competition  in 
theatrical  entertainments.  "  We  know  not," 
says  the  dramatic  editor  of  that  weekly,  com- 
menting on  the  representation  of  the  Patent 
Seasons,  "  we  know  not  how  the  performers  feel 
on  such  an  occasion,  but  it  must  surely  be  a 
strong  sense  of  the  truth  of  what  they  are  say- 
ing, which  enables  them  so  gravely  to  say  it. 
It  is  certainly  an  awkward  business  on  all  sides. 
Actors,  we  are  afraid,  like  other  agreeable  per- 
sons, get  little  with  the  town  in  general,  by 
showing  themselves  in  the  light  of  sufferers, 
instead  of  merry  makers.  The  chance  is  that 
want  of  success  is  attributed  to  them  rather  as 
a  want  of  merit  than  anything  else.  The  town, 
on  the  other  hand,  evidently  feels  less  inter- 
ested in  the  pathetic  part  of  the  representation 
than  in  the  sarcasms  on  Mr.  Elliston.  It  crowds 
to  the  pit  in  much  the  same  taste  as  people 
crowd  around  a  fight,  for  the  sake  of  being 
entertained  and  excited  at  the  expense  of  oth- 
ers. .  .  .  But  the  right  of  comj^laint  is  un- 
doubted on  the  part  of  the  Lyceum,  if  not  for 


276  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

the  actual  encroachment,  for  the  manner  of  It. 
The  truth  is,  that  all  the  theatres,  great  and 
small,  ought  to  be  allowed  to  remain  open  all 
the  year  round,  and  the  legislature  should  be 
applied  to  accordingly.  We  can  hardly  sup- 
pose that  it  would  hold  out  long,  against  ear- 
nest and  well-put  representation." 

There  is  a  possible  justification  of  EUiston's 
action  in  opening  Drury  Lane  the  middle  of 
August,  1820,  Edmund  Kean  was  preparing  to 
come  to  America  for  the  season  of  1820-21,  and 
Elliston  conceived  the  idea  of  getting  him  to 
give  a  series  of  "  farewell  "  performances  before 
sailing.  Though  ostensibly  for  the  benefit  of 
the  public,  this  was  a  mere  ruse  used  to  cover 
up  an  "  unprecedented  and  oppressive  conduct 
towards  the  summer  houses."  When  Kean 
closed  this  engagement  (September  16),  it  was 
indignantly  asserted  by  some  that,  "  we  cannot 
believe  that  such  an  experiment  will  ever  be 
repeated,"  of  keeping  the  patent  theatre  oj)en 
during  the  summer.* 

The  patentees  had  not  yet  reached  their  limit 
in  the  matter  of  encroachments.  But  if  there 
was  ever  a  theatrical  manager  who  knew,  and 
dared  to  use,  his  capabilities  in  matters  of  an 
extreme  nature,  Robert  William  Elliston  was 
that  manager.  The  season  of  1820-21  closed  at 
1  European  Magazine,  vol.  78,  p.  257. 


THE   RISE   OF   ENGLISH   OPERA         277 

Drury  Lane  on  June  15.  On  the  27tli  of  the 
same  month  it  reopened  for  "  a  limited  period," 
for  the  purpose  of  producing-  the  masked  festi- 
vals, the  Victory  of  Waterloo,  and  the  Corona- 
tion. "On  the  subject  of  interfering  with  the 
'  little  hour '  allotted  to  the  career  of  the  Sum- 
mer Theatres,  by  this  new  arrangement,"  re- 
marks the  "European  Magazine  "  '  on  this  pro- 
cedure, "  we  cannot  but  regret  that  Drury 
Lane  should  be  thus  reopened  ;  and  whatever 
interest  may  accrue  from  it  to  any  party,  as 
a  species  of  monopoly,  we  most  unhesitatingly 
condemn  the  principle.  We  leave  all  notice  of 
the  season's  conclusion  until  we  are  sure  that 
it  is  really  finished  ;  and  positively  and  finally 
at  an  end." 

The  critic  was  saved  the  trouble  of  his  "  notice," 
for  that  season  at  Drury  Lane  did  not  "posi- 
tively and  finally  end,"  but  continued  straight  on 
through  the  year.  In  July,  Kean  returned  to 
London  after  his  unpleasant  experience  in  Amer- 
ica, and  at  once  began  to  perform  at  Drury 
Lane  (July  23).  Not  to  be  behind,  Covent 
Garden  entered  the  contest,  and  summer  and 
winter  houses  struggled  through  the  season. 
Though  it  was  apparent  that  the  motive  of  the 
patentees  was  completely  to  silence  the  summer 
theatres,  nevertheless,  by  a  resort  to  novelty, 
1  Vol.  79,  p.  550;    see  also  vol.  80,  pp.  382,  383. 


278  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

the  latter  succeeded  in  keeping  their  doors  open. 
But  the  experience  was  too  costly  to  hazard  a 
repetition.  It  was  time  to  determine,  once  for 
all,  whether  the  English  Opera  House  and  the 
Little  Theatre  were  to  be  exterminated  or  to 
exist  independently  and  in  spite  of  the  j)atent 
houses ;  half -existence  was  no  longer  endurable. 
On  the  closing  night  at  the  Haymarket  (October 
14,  1820)  the  management  announced  that  the 
next  season  would  open  in  a  new  building.  The 
old  building,  which  had  stood  for  just  a  century, 
was  pulled  down  to  make  room  for  street  im- 
provements. The  new  Haymarket  Theatre  was 
erected  on  the  adjoining  lot.  On  the  4th  of  the 
following  July,  although  the  new  theatre  was 
not  yet  completed,  it  opened  with  an  independent 
company  and  succeeded  in  keeping  open  for 
four  months.  At  the  close  of  the  season  (Novem- 
ber 2),  the  manager  boldly  uttered  his  defiance 
at  the  patent  houses,  and  announced  his  deter- 
mination "  to  try  his  strength  with  the  great 
Leviathans  of  the  Drama."  Now  that  the  winter 
theatres  had  become  summer  ones,  Morris,  who 
was  now  the  Haymarket  proprietor,  published  his 
intention  "  to  enter  upon  the  open  field  of  public 
competition,  prepared  to  struggle  and  endure, . .  . 
willing  to  fight  on  until  he  may  at  last  succeed 
in  establishing  a  company,  independent  of  the 
large  theatres,   ...   in  a   theatre  honourably 


THE  RISE   OF  ENGLISH   OPERA         279 

devoted  to  all  the  legitimate  purposes  of  the 
British  Drama." 

This  address  contains  some  of  the  most  radi- 
cal advances  made  thus  far  in  the  struggle  for 
supremacy  between  the  patent  houses  and  sum- 
mer theatres.  The  threat  to  turn  the  tables  on 
the  patentees,  to  enter  not  only  their  season  but 
also  their  exclusive  monopoly  of  the  legitimate 
drama,  M^as  a  daring  one,  but  not  without  its 
justification.  On  the  accession  of  George  IV 
(1820),  an  application  was  made  (and  granted) 
to  extend  the  Haymarket  license  to  seven  months 
(April  15  to  November  15),  and  the  season 
of  1821  closed  with  a  firm  resolve  on  the  part  of 
the  Little  Theatre  manager  to  take  advantage 
of  the  privilege.* 

This  had  the  desired  effect  on  the  great  houses. 
The  following  year  (1822)  a  compromise  was 
brought  about,  in  the  presence  of  the  Lord 
Chamberlain  (then  the  Duke  of  Montrose),  con- 
cerning the  respective  seasons  of  the  winter  and 
summer  theatres.  The  arrangement  provided  for 
a  return  to  the  original  understanding — that 
the  summer  theatres  should  have  the  advantag^e 
of  a  four  months  season  without  interference 
from  the  winter  houses.  Elliston  at  once  offi- 
cially notified  his  performers  of  the  agreement,  in 
order  that  they  might  renew  their  connections 
^  Examiner,  November  4,  1821. 


280  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

with  the  summer  theatres.*  When  the  Duke  of 
Devonshire  succeeded  the  Duke  of  Montrose  in 
the  Lord  Chamberlainship,  an  application  was 
made  for  a  renewal  of  the  agreement  of  1822, 
and  was  denied.  This  was  followed  (1832)  by 
a  petition  for  an  extended  license  at  the  Hay- 
market,  but  as  this  circumstance  is  bound  up 
with  the  general  movement  of  the  time,  I  shall 
reserve  it  for  its  proper  place. 

Thus  ended  the  long  war  of  encroachments, 
and  the  combatants  turned  their  attention  to 
another  struggle  which  had  of  late  years  become 
of  paramount  importance  in  the  contest  for  a 
free  stage.  This  was  the  fierce  competition 
which  had  grown  up  between  the  majors  and 
minors,  and  which  occupied  the  public  attention 
from  the  period  reached  in  our  investigation  to 
the  close  of  the  struggle. 

1  London  Chronicle,  April  3,  1822.  As  the  English  Opera 
House  was  still  running'  on  its  four  months  license,  it  was  not 
represented  in  this  settlement,  though,  of  course,  reaping  the 
benefits  of  it. 


CHAPTER  XI 


MAJORS   VS.   MINORS 


EARLY  in  the  eighteenth  century,  in  the  days 
of  Queen  Anne,  men  of  rank  frequently 
assembled  for  amusement  at  a  tavern  at  the  rear 
of  Oxford  House  in  High  Street,  Marylebone 
Gardens.  The  place  afterwards  fell  into  disre- 
pute, and  is  the  scene  of  Macheath's  debauch- 
eries in  the  Beggar  s  Opera.  About  the  year 
1740  the  Gardens  were  opened  for  public  break- 
fasts and  evening  concerts.  The  entertainments 
resembled  those  at  Vauxhall,  including  a  varied 
range  of  pyrotechnic  exhibitions.  Among  the 
musical  novelties  introduced  at  the  Marylebone 
Gardens  was  a  species  which,  later,  "not  only 
perplexed  the  sages  of  the  Drama,  but  posed 
even  the  learned  in  the  law,"  though  at  that 
time  (when  Dr.  Arnold  was  connected  with  the 
Gardens)  it  gave  little  concern  to  the  patent 
houses,  or  any  one  else,^ 

This    was    the  "  burletta,"  of    Italian    origin 

1  For  aecotints  of  places  of  amusement  in  London  in  the 
eighteenth  century  see  Wroth,  London  Pleasure  Gardens  of  the 
Eighteenth  Century;  Boulton,  Amusements  of  Old  London; 
Besant,  London  in  the  Eighteenth  Century. 


282  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

(diminutive  of  hurla^  mockery),  afterwards  per- 
formed at  Coveut  Garden,  and  all  the  minors. 
Among  the  various  methods  adopted  by  the 
minor  theatres,  to  evade  the  limitations  placed 
on  their  licenses,  was  to  alter,  by  degrees,  the 
burletta,  or  musical  farce,  until  it  approximated 
the  legitimate  drama  in  presentation,  though 
'  still  retaining  its  original  title.  So  imperceptible 
were  these  changes  that  the  monopoly  had  been 
almost  surrounded  and  undermined  before 
serious  opposition  was  raised  to  the  burletta ; 
and  by  then,  precedent  had  so  thoroughly  as- 
sociated that  particular  sort  of  entertainment 
with  the  lesser  establishments,  distinguishing 
them  from  the  guardians  of  the  legitimate  drama, 
that  they  could  not  be  dispossessed  of  it  after 
the  thing  itself  had  become  confused  with  the 
regular  drama.  Furthermore,  as  we  shall  see, 
the  patentees,  in  an  evil  moment,  sanctioned  the 
burletta  after  it  had  been  metamorphosed  into 
the  drama,  by  bringing  on  a  regular  piece  under 
the  title  of  "  burletta." 

At  the  close  of  the  eighteenth  century  a  bur- 
letta was  generally  understood  to  be  "  a  drama  in 
rhyme,  which  is  entirely  musical ;  a  short  comic 
piece,  consisting  of  recitative  and  singing,  wholly 
accompanied,  more  or  less,  by  the  orchestra."  This 
is  the  definition  given  by  the  younger  Colman.* 
^  Random  Records,  i,  46-56. 


MAJORS  VS.  MINORS  283 

The  word  itself  seems  to  have  been  coined,  and 
hence  the  dictionaries  of  the  time  are  void  as  to 
its  meaning,  or  so  vague  and  general  in  defining 
it  that  little  light  was  shed  by  them  when  the  dif- 
ficulty arose  concerning  that  particular  kind  of 
entertainment.  Astley  got  the  burletta  added  to 
his  amphitheatre  license  in  1787;  and  we  have 
seen  how  a  certain  jealousy  was  manifested  by 
the  patentees  towards  Sadler's  Wells  when  the 
latter  (1788)  tried  to  get  a  legal  sanction  for  its 
usurped  performances.  By  stealthy  advances  the 
burletta  so  evolved  that,  by  the  time  a  dozen  or 
so  of  the  minors  were  well  under  way,  it  became 
a  most  desirable  addition  to  the  annual  license ; 
as  by  that  time  it  had  been  made  to  cover  every 
imaginable  phase  of  the  drama  from  the  most 
trivial  farce  to  Macbeth  and  Hamlet. 

In  1809,  two  years  after  the  immense  impetus 
given  to  minor  theatres  by  the  licensing  of  a 
half-dozen  or  more,  we  may  learn  something  of 
the  meaning  of  a  burletta  from  the  following 
letter  respecting  one  of  the  minors.  The  letter  is 
dated  August  29,  1809,  and  is  from  the  Deputy- 
Chamberlain  to  Lord  Dartmouth,  Chamberlain. 
It  is  as  follows  : 

"  Mr.  Scott,  the  proprietor  of  the  small  thea- 
tre [Sans  Pareil]  situate  in  BuUen  Court  in  the 
Strand  has  just  called  to  solicit  a  renewal  of  his 
licence,  and  humbly  hopes  that  your  Lordship 


284  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

will  see  no  objection  to  the  introduction  of  the 
word  '  Burlettas,'  which  are  strict  musical  pieces 
without  dialogue,  and  which  have  hitherto  been 
performed  under  his  joresent  licence  for  music, 
dancing,  song  recitative,  recitation,  and  pan- 
tomime with  optical  and  mechanical  exhibition, 
but  which  is  not,  like  Mr.  Astley,  sufficient  to 
authorize  him  to  continue  such  representation, 
and  is  therefore  only  desirous  that  the  word 
'  Burletta '  should  be  inserted,  merely  for  the 
sake  of  security,  without  the  smallest  intention 
of  extending  his  performance  in  the  least. "^ 

The  repeated  assurance  that  Mr.  Scott  had 
no  intention  of  gaining  any  more  privileges, 
but  nevertheless  wanted  the  word  put  into  his 
license,  is  significant.  The  attention  of  the  Lord 
Chamberlain  had  to  be  called  by  the  patentees 
to  the  abuse  practiced  by  the  managers  of  the 
minor  theatres  in  their  interpretation  of  "  bur- 
letta," but  that  official,  feeling  his  inability  to 
define  the  species,  brought  the  matter  for  canvass 
before  the  Privy  Council.  The  lawyers,  called 
in  to  decide  the  meaning  and  state  the  law  reg- 
ulating the  burletta,  were  equally  incompetent 
and  timorous. 

As  if  such  a  decision  —  or  lack  of  decision 
—  were  not  victory  enough  for  the  minors 
(since  they   were    thus  left  practically  to   de- 

^  Historical  MSS.  Commission.  Report  XIII*,  p.  505. 


MAJORS  VS.  MINORS  285 

fine  for  themselves  the  meaning  of  their  annual 
licenses),  Covent  Garden  gave  them  another 
loose  to  their  string  by  announcing  for  its  own 
boards  Fielding's  Tom  Thumbs  containing  dia- 
logue without  music,  giving  it  the  title  of  "  bur- 
letta,"  thus  affording  the  minors  a  precedent  for 
interpreting  the  term  in  future.  The  Lord 
Chamberlain  extricated  himself  from  the  diffi- 
culty as  best  he  could  ;  he  simply  continued  to 
license  the  performances  known  as  burlettas  on 
the  grounds  that  they  had  been  licensed,  and  he 
had  been  unable  to  obtain  proof  or  professional 
opinion  that  the  performances  so  licensed  were 
not  burlettas.  The  Duke  of  Montrose  modified 
this  decision  somewhat  (1827),  but  left  the  con- 
ditions practically  unchanged  ;  he  granted  li- 
censes to  the  minors  for  the  performance  "  call'd 
by  the  manager  a  Burletta,  .  .  .  provided  it  be, 
in  legal  acceptance,  a  Burletta."  The  Chamber- 
lain thus  relieved  himself  of  further  responsibil- 
ity in  the  matter  ;  the  minor  manager  was  still 
left  to  define  his  own  powers,  and  if  the  pat- 
entees were  dissatisfied  with  the  competition  that 
arose,  their  attention  was  called  to  a  recourse  in 
the  Courts  of  Justice. 

By  1833  the  mystery  attaching  to  the  bur- 
letta was  dispelled,  it  had  become  indistinguish- 
able from  the  drama.  "  The  question  of  what  is 
or  is  not  a  burletta,"  writes  the  editor  of  the 


286  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

"Morning  Chronicle"  (November  29,  1833), 
"has  now,  in  practice  at  least,  been  settled  ;  it 
means  a  drama,  with  amusing  plot,  S23rightly  dia- 
logue, and  light  sketchy  characters,  without  any 
music."  And  it  is  safe  to  say  that  this  was  a  fair 
definition,  taken,  as  it  was,  from  an  examination 
of  a  new  burletta  (by  Charles  Dance),  brought 
out  at  the  Olympic  on  the  25th  of  November,  1833. 
An  amusing  illustration  will  demonstrate  the 
scope  assumed  by  the  burletta  at  this  time.  In 
the  course  of  an  action  in  the  Queen's  Bench, 
in  which  Yates  of  the  Adelphi  was  defendant  in 
a  breach  of  contract  suit  brought  against  him  by 
Levy  of  the  Victoria,  the  question  was  asked, 
"  What  is  a  burletta  ?  "  Edward  Stirling  was  in 
the  witness  chair,  and  answered,  that  it  was  "of 
French  origin,  containing  necessary  singing  and 
music."  "  Pray,"  continued  the  counsel  for 
Levy,  "  is  Mrs.  Fitzwilliams  an  actress  or 
singer  ?  "  "  Both,"  was  the  answer.  "  Perhaps 
you  can  inform  us  if  it  is  essential  that  Ophelia 
should  sing  in  Hamlet  ?  "  pursued  the  lawyer. 
"  Pardon  me,"  replied  Stirling,  "  I  think  Shake- 
speare settled  that  question  before  we  were 
born."  1 

I  have  given  this  hasty  survey  of  the  progress 
of  the  musical  farce  under  the  alias  of  "bur- 
letta," in  order  that  the  difficulties,  as  they  arise 

1  Old  Drury  Lane,  i,  172. 


MAJORS  VS.  MINORS  287 

between  the  patent  theatres  and  the  lesser  estab- 
lishments, may  be  the  better  appreciated.  Other 
evasions  and  perversions  were  practiced  by  the 
minors,  such  as,  for  example,  the  uses  which 
the  melodrama  were  made  to  serve,  as  also  the 
opera,  operetta,  and  so  forth ;  but  as  these  terms 
need  no  explanation,  I  pass  them  by.  The  bur- 
letta  was  the  main  loop-hole  through  which  the 
minors  sought  escape,  though  not  always  suc- 
cessfully, when  pursued  by  the  majors.  A  series 
of  instances  will  illustrate. 

In  1771  Charles  Hughes  built  and  opened  an 
amphitheatre  in  Blackf  riars-Road  to  compete  with 
Philip  Astley's  circus,  which  started  the  previous 
year.  Charles  Dibdin  became  a  partner  with 
Hughes  in  1782,  when  the  name  of  the  place 
was  changed  to  the  Koyal  Circus.  Here  Dibdin 
originated  the  "  equestrian  drama."  The  man- 
agement was  in  all  sorts  of  difficulties  from  the 
first,  and  Dibdin  made  frequent  visits  to  the 
King's  Bench.  In  1805  the  Royal  Circus  burned 
down,  but  was  rebuilt  and  opened  the  following 
year.  At  first  children  were  the  only  (human) 
actors.  Thus  far  little  had  occurred  to  distin- 
guish the  Royal  Circus  from  the  species  signified 
by  its  name.  But  it  was  to  become  one  of  the 
prominent  minors  by  means  of  an  alchemy  that 
was  soon  to  alter  the  whole  theatrical  situation 
in  London. 


288  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

On  the  23d  of  February,  1809,  —  the  day 
before  the  burning  of  Drury  Lane  Theatre, 
—  Robert  William  Elliston  became  lessee,  for 
seven  years,  of  the  Royal  Circus.  This  trans- 
action marks  the  real  beginning  of  the  revolution 
that  was  to  destroy  the  theatrical  monopoly ; 
for  although  the  movement  was  in  the  air,  until 
Elliston  brought  his  genius  to  bear  on  the  situa- 
tion, no  practical  line  of  action  had  as  yet  been 
laid  out.  Elliston  is  a  typical  example  of  "the 
times  and  the  man."  A  month  after  the  transac- 
tion referred  to  above,  the  new  manager  an- 
nounced that  the  house  would  open  on  the 
ensuing  Easter  Monday,  Pursuant  to  this  ad- 
vertisement, the  newly  fitted-up  theatre  opened 
with  a  new  prelude,  a  melodramatic  spectacle, 
entitled  Tlie  Invisible  Avengers.  Although  Ellis- 
ton's  engagement  at  the  Lyceum  (where  the 
burnt-out  Drury  Lane  Company  was  then  per- 
forming) prevented  his  appearance  at  his  own 
theatre  before  the  middle  of  June,  nevertheless 
the  opening  of  the  Royal  Circus  (renamed  the 
Surrey)  was  auspicious.  The  inventive  genius  of 
Elliston  in  arranging  novel  performances  assured 
success  from  the  outset.  Among  the  great  num- 
ber of  skillful  methods  employed  by  him  atten- 
tion may  be  called  to  his  alteration  of  the  Beaux 
Stratagem  into  a  burletta.  "  The  success  of  this 
dramatic  transmutation  induced    a  second  of  a 


MAJORS   VS.  MINORS  289 

similar  nature ;  and  some  weeks  subsequently  the 
Bold  Stroke  for  a  Wife  was  adroitly  invigor- 
ated with  a  decoction  of  music  and  mesdames, 
the  joint  patentees  of  the  nostrum.''^  The  climax, 
however,  of  Elliston's  audacity  was  reached  when, 
in  September,  1809,  he  actually  transformed 
Macbeth  into  a  ballet  of  action,  with  music,  and 
represented  it  at  his  new  Surrey  Theatre !  ^  It 
was  in  allusion  to  this  circumstance  that  Sheri- 
dan, when  in  the  Privy  Council,  1810,  cynically 
remarked  that  Elliston  had  done  greater  violence 
to  Shakespeare  than  to  the  law. 

But  so  long  as  Elliston  was  successful  in  the 
popular  eye,  he  took  little  account  of  the  means 
employed.  The  first  season  at  the  Surrey  proved 
so  successful,  that  the  intrepid  manager  was  in- 
duced to  attempt  an  enlargement  of  his  privi- 
leges. It  has  already  been  remarked  that  the 
licenses  hitherto  issued  to  the  proprietors  of 
minor  theatres  did  not  permit  dialogue,  except 
with  an  accompaniment  of  music.  It  was  the 
violation  of  this  provision  which  caused  some 
of  the  actors  at  Palmer's  Royalty  Theatre  to  be 
prosecuted  by   the   patentees.    On  the   5th  of 

^  For  the  chief  facts  connected  with  Elliston's  managership 
of  the  Surrey  (Royal  Circus),  I  have  followed  Raymond's 
Life  and  Enterprises  of  Robert  William  Elliston,  Comedian, 
pp.  156-171.  As  Raymond  knew  Elliston  well,  and  had  access 
to  his  private  papers  and  correspondence,  I  take  it  that  his 
book  is  authoritative. 


290  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

March,  1810,  Sir  Thomas  Turton  presented  a 
petition  to  the  House  of  Commons  to  enable 
EUiston  to  exhibit  and  perform  at  the  Surrey 
Theatre  all  such  entertainments  of  music  as  are 
commonly  called  pantomimes  and  ballets,  to- 
gether with  operatic  or  musical  pieces,  accom- 
panied with  dialogue.  An  alteration  in  the 
petition  was  suggested  to  Turton,  to  exempt 
the  proprietor  of  the  Royal  Circus  from  certain 
penalties  under  the  law  regulating  dramatic 
exhibitions.  It  seems  altogether  probable  that 
this  was  a  scheme  to  defeat  the  petition,  for  the 
change  called  for  an  exemption  of  Elliston  from 
penalties  that  might  be  incurred  for  breach  of 
existing  laws.  Turton  consented  to  the  altera- 
tion, and  the  petition  was,  of  course,  defeated. 
The  following  year  Sir  T.  Turton  was  one  of 
the  chief  defenders  of  patent  rights,  and  it  seems 
strange  that  he  should  have  been  selected  to 
pilot  Elliston's  petition  through  Parliament. 

Soon  after  the  defeat  of  his  petition  Elliston 
addressed  the  minister  (Perceval)  on  the  subject 
of  an  extension  of  privileges  at  the  Royal  Circus, 
and  received  as  answer  the  opinion  that  such  a 
request  could  not  be  granted,  "  except  upon  a 
ground  which  would  go  to  alter  the  whole  prin- 
ciple upon  which  theatrical  entertainments  are 
at  present  regulated  within  the  metropolis  and 
twenty  miles  round  it."     The  Surrey,  therefore, 


MAJORS  VS.  MINORS  291 

continued  after  the  order  of  its  first  year's  per- 
formances, which  usually  went  off  "  with  the 
greatest  applause  "  from  audiences  "  of  a  very 
respectable  description."  ^ 

Meantime  the  Sans  Pareil  had  been  added  to 
the  list  of  minors  with  the  burletta  clause  in  its 
license.  Astley's  and  Sadler's  Wells  were  the 
other  chief  competitors  of  the  Surrey  at  this 
time.  The  Tottenham  Concert  Rooms,  which  had 
been  the  home  of  Colonel  Greville's  "Pic-Nic 
Society,"  was  converted  into  a  circus  in  1808, 
and  in  1810  purchased  by  a  pawnbroker  by  the 
name  of  Paul,  altered  for  theatrical  purposes, 
and  opened  for  the  first  time  on  the  23d  of 
April  of  that  year,  with  burletta  attractions. 
This  latter  venture,  however,  was  a  failure,  and 
need  not  be  considered  among  the  minors  of 
importance. 

One  other  minor  of  this  early  period  deserves 
separate  notice.  This  was  the  Olympic  Pavilion, 
erected  by  Astley,  the  circus  king  and  horse- 
tamer,  on  a  spot  in  Wych  Street  where  the  old 
Craven  House  once  stood.  This  latter  building 
—  which  has  its  own  history  —  had  been  con- 
structed by  Lord  Craven  early  in  the  seventeenth 
century.  It  was  pulled  down  in  1805,  and  the 
ground  leased  to  Philip  Astley.  The  Amphi- 
theatre at  the  foot  of  Westminster  Bridge  had 
1  London  Chronicle,  April  24,  1810. 


292  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

but  recently  burned  down  (1803),  and  the  man- 
ager looked  about  for  a  substitute  while  it  was 
rebuilding,  with  the  result  that  he  secured  the 
Olympic  Pavilion.  For  some  time  the  theatre 
was  quite  successful,  but  this  did  not  long  con- 
tinue and  Astley  put  the  place  up  for  sale. 

Now,  whenever  a  theatre  in  England  was  for 
sale  during  the  first  quarter  of  the  nineteenth 
century,  there  was  at  least  one  ready  purchaser. 
This  was  Robert  William  Elliston,  comedian  and 
theatrical  manager,  who,  at  that  very  time,  was 
negotiating  for  theatres  in  Dublin,  Birmingham, 
and  Edinburgh.  On  the  eighteenth  of  March, 
1813,  the  managership  of  the  Olympic  Pavilion 
was  transferred  to  Elliston,  and  on  Easter  Mon- 
day (April  nineteenth)  of  the  same  year,  —  the 
usual  time  for  opening  the  minors,  —  the  new 
proprietor  opened  the  place  under  the  name  of 
"  Little  Drury  Lane  Theatre, "  because  of  its 
proximity  to  Old  Drury  Lane  Theatre.  The  cir- 
cumstance of  this  venture  soon  brought  the  patent 
houses  down  on  Elliston.  When  the  latter  se- 
cured the  Olympic  from  Astley,  he  received  a 
guarantee  for  the  continuance  of  the  license, 
which,  as  originally  granted,  extended  through 
the  whole  year.  It  was  with  this  understanding 
that  the  theatre  was  now  opened  for  burlettas  and 
musical  pieces.  Elliston's  ambition  for  theatrical 
managership  was  sufficient  to  arouse  the  jealousy 


MAJORS   VS.  MINORS  293 

of  the  patentees,  while  the  appropriation  of  a  cir- 
cus license  for  theatrical  uses  incensed  them  be- 
yond endurance.  They  at  once  memorialized  the 
Lord  Chamberlain  to  the  effect  that  Astley's  li- 
cense permitted  him  to  act  at  the  Pavilion  only 
when  the  Amphitheatre  was  closed,  that  he  had 
promised,  at  the  time  his  license  for  the  Pavilion 
was  issuing,  that  he  would  not  violate  the  arrange- 
ment therein  contained,  and,  further,  that  his 
license  was  for  equestrian  exhibitions  only.  The 
Lord  Chamberlain  (Lord  Dartmouth)  pretended 
to  have  overlooked  these  details  in  permitting 
Elliston  to  open  the  Olympic.  Pressed  by  the  pro- 
prietors of  Covent  Garden  and  Drury  Lane,  he 
felt  under  the  necessity  of  recalling  the  permis- 
sion granted  to  Elliston  to  act  at  "  Little  Drury. " 
Accordingly,  Elliston's  operations  were  brought  to 
a  sudden  standstill,  and  the  establishment  in  Wych 
Street  was  closed  until  the  following  December, 
when  the  name  "  Little  Drury  Lane  Theatre " 
disappeared,  and  the  "  Olympic  "  was  again 
adopted,  —  for  it  would  seem  that  the  former 
title,  quite  as  much  as  the  license  granted  to 
Elliston,  had  aroused  the  anger  of  the  patentees,* 
The  relative  situation  of  the  majors  and 
minors,  sketched  in  the  foregoing  pai-agraphs, 
remained  unchanged  until  about  1818  or  1820. 
The  minors  had  a  comfortable,  though  by  no 
1  Raymond's  Life  of  Elliston,  p.  216 ;  Belgravia,  viii,  402. 


294  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

means  exalted,  existence  on  their  light  fare  of 
musical  farces,  or  burlettas,  singing,  dancing, 
rope-walking,  and  the  like.  However,  the  Sur- 
rey and  Olympic  easily  led  the  others  in  the 
character  of  their  performances.  Drury  Lane 
Theatre  had  been  saved  by  the  providential 
appearance  and  engagement  of  Edmund  Kean, 
"  the  little  man  in  the  cloaks,"  while  Covent 
Garden  was  flourishing  on  exhibitions,  little  or 
nothing  above  those  at  the  minor  establishments. 
Thus  far  these  smaller  concerns  can  hardly  be 
said  to  have  menaced  the  patent  houses,  yet  the 
jealousy  of  the  latter  was  very  apparent  at  every 
privilege  gained  by  the  former. 

It  was  at  this  period  in  the  history  of  the 
London  theatres  that  the  minors  pushed  rapidly 
to  the  front,  and,  for  the  first  time,  became 
really  inimical  to  the  welfare  of  the  "  great 
houses."  The  causes  may  be  traced  to  numer- 
ous sources,  —  to  be  dealt  with  in  another  place. 
At  present  it  is  sufficient  to  enumerate  the 
most  important  of  these  causes.  The  gradual 
development  of  the  burletta  has  already  been 
noticed,  and  to  EUiston,  more  than  any  one 
else,  was  this  innovation  due,  though  T.  Dibdin 
of  the  Surrey  also  deserves  a  front  rank  among 
minor  managers.  As  the  exhibitions  of  the 
minors  approached  the  regular  drama,  the  tend- 
ency was   assisted   by  the  decline  of  the  per- 


MAJORS  VS.  MINORS  295 

formances  at  the  patent  theatres,  and  especially 
at  Covent  Garden,  where  spectacles,  melo- 
dramas, and  animal  shows  banished  the  legiti- 
mate drama  from  their  boards.  This,  of  course, 
brought  the  majors  and  minors  towards  a  com- 
mon ground  for  competition,  while  the  process 
emphasized  the  importance  of  the  smaller  con- 
cerns. The  appearance  of  Sir  Walter's  novels, 
and,  later,  those  of  Cooper  and  others,  gave  an 
impetus  to  the  movement  already  begun,  as  the 
melodramatic  incidents  of  these  works  of  fiction 
were  immediately  dramatized  for  the  stage,  and 
brought  out  at  the  patent  houses  and  the  minors 
indiscriminately.  It  was  a  time  of  melodramatic 
tastes,  and  the  success  of  the  smaller  theatres 
—  from  which  melodrama  was  not  excluded, 
because  it  did  not  belong  to  the  legitimate  cate- 
gory —  in  bringing  these  out,  drove  the  "  great 
houses  "  into  the  competition  for  popular  favor. 
Add  to  this,  the  main  fact  to  keep  sight  of, 
another,  namely,  that  it  cost  the  patent  houses 
more  to  "  dress  "  a  piece  for  the  stage,  and  we 
may  well  understand  the  disadvantage  to  which 
they  were  put  in  the  competition.  Furthermore, 
the  copyright  law  was  no  defense,  either  to 
dramatic  authors  or  to  the  patentees ;  the 
minors  were  free  to  appropriate  any  piece  they 
desired,  which  they  did  as  soon  as  it  had  been 
tried  at  one  of  the  larffe  houses. 


296  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

Still  other  causes  magnified  the  situation, 
among  which  may  be  mentioned  the  mismanage- 
ment which  characterized  the  patent  houses 
at  this  time ;  the  appearance  of  trans- Atlantic 
steamships,  by  which,  towards  the  close  of  the 
struggle,  actors  could  seek  an  asylum  on  the 
American  side  when  dissatisfied  with  the  pat- 
entees, thus  depriving  the  latter  of  their  chief 
attractions  and  support ;  the  accession  of  a  new 
king  (1820),  an  event  usually  followed  by  a 
clamor  for  privileges  of  all  sorts ;  and,  finally, 
a  general  stirring  of  the  reform  movement,  in 
no  sense  congenial  to  the  theatrical  monopoly. 
From  this  on  (circa  1818),  the  newspaper  and 
magazine  assume  an  interest  in  the  theatrical 
contest,  such  as  had  not  previously  appeared. 

At  this  time  another  minor  was  added  to  the 
already  considerable  list  of  "  irregular  "  thea- 
tres. The  foundation  stone  of  this  new  theatre 
was  laid  (by  proxy),  in  the  fall  of  1816,  by 
Prince  Leopold  of  Coburg,  husband  to  the 
Princess  Charlotte,  chief  patron  of  the  under- 
taking. In  honor  of  the  Prince  the  new  theatre 
was  called  the  "Coburg."  In  1833  (on  the 
occasion  of  a  visit  from  the  Princess)  the  name 
was  changed  to  "  Victoria."  The  place  was  first 
opened  on  Saturday  evening,  May  9,  1818,  with 
a  private  rehearsal,  and,  on  the  following  Mon- 
day evening,    it   presented  to  the  public    The 


MAJORS  VS.  MINORS  297 

Trial  hy  Battle^  which  ran  a  number  of  times 
and  was  well  received.^  This  little  theatre  was 
a  troublesome  competitor  from  the  start,  not 
only  of  the  patent  houses,  but  also  of  the  other 
minors. 

The  main  contest,  however,  at  this  time,  was 
waged  by  the  Surrey  and  the  Olympic,  with  T. 
Dibdin  at  the  head  of  the  former,  and  EUiston 
at  the  latter.  On  the  23d  of  January,  1818,  "  a 
new  grand  melo-drama,  founded  on  Mr.  Cole- 
ridge's favourite  dramatic  Poem,  called  Zapolya, 
or  The  War  Wolf,"  was  announced  (in  the 
"Morning  Chronicle")  by  the  Surrey  manager 
as  the  attraction  for  Monday,  the  2d  of  February. 
A  week  later  (January  30)  the  advertisement 
was  changed,  Zapolya  was  pushed  forward  to 
the  9th  of  February,  and  House  Warming^  with 
The  Italian  Wife,  placed  for  the  2d  of  Feb- 
ruary. No  reason  is  given  for  this  alteration  in 
the  bills,  and  the  announcement  of  these  plays 
is  printed  in  ordinary  type.  Moreover,  it  was 
customary  at  the  Surrey  to  announce  coming 
attractions  at  least  a  week  in  advance  of  their 
representation.  In  the  case  of  Fazio,  or  The 
Italian  Wife,  the  advertisement  appeared  in 
the  daily  prints  only  two  days  before  the  per- 
formance. 

^  London  Chronicle,  May  12,  1818 ;  Morning  Chronicle,  May 
21,  1818 ;  European  Magazine,  May,  1818. 


298    THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

These  proceedings  are  accounted  for  by  the 
popularity  Fazio  was  making  for  itself  at  the 
Bath  Theatre,  where  it  was  first  produced  on 
the  6th  of  January  (1818).^  Dibdin,  learning 
of  its  success,  saw  the  opportunity  for  increas- 
ing, the  rank  of  his  already  favored  theatre, 
and,  altering  his  plans  on  short  notice,  repre- 
sented Fazio  as  an  acting  play  on  the  2d  of 
February.^  The  piece  did  not  disappoint  the 
expectations  of  the  Surrey  manager;  but  it 
aroused  the  ire  of  the  patentees,  for,  as  given 
by  Dibdin,  it  belonged  really  to  the  regular 
drama.  Besides,  the  Covent  Garden  manager 
contemplated  bringing  it  out  himself,  and  to 
be  thus  forestalled  in  the  undertaking  was  the 
source  of  much  offense  to  him.  On  the  4th 
of  February,  however,  Covent  Garden  gave  out 
in  capitals  the  "  new  tragedy  of  FAZIO,"  for 
"  tomorrow  evening."  Three  days  later,  Dibdin 
again  dared  to  offer  to  the  j)ublic  "  (for  this  night 
only)  the  very  favourite  serious  Melo-drama,  as 
originally  produced  at  this  Theatre,  taken  from 
Mr.  Millman's  Tragedy  of  Fazio,  called  The 
ITALIAN  WIFE."     After  this,  the  piece  ap- 

^  Genest,  viii,  669. 

^  The  previous  season  (1817)  the  Surrey  did  not  close 
until  the  28th  of  October.  It  opened  again  on  the  28th  of 
December,  "  for  a  short  winter  season,"  closing  on  the 
2d  of  March  (1818).  European  Magazine,  vol.  72,  pp.  458- 
550. 


MAJORS  VS.  MINORS  299 

peared  at  Covent  Garden  twelve  times*  before 
the  middle  of  April,  and  then  gave  place  to 
more  popular  attractions. 

This  piece  of  audacity  on  the  part  of  Dibdin 
had  scarcely  been  equaled  at  any  of  the  other 
minors.  The  competition  between  the  minor  and 
major  on  this  occasion  was  unquestionable,  and 
the  fact  was  irritating  to  the  patentees.  Elliston, 
over  at  the  Olympic,  was  not  far  behind  Dibdin 
at  the  Surrey,  and,  the  same  year  in  which  the 
above  circumstance  occurred,  succeeded  in  bring- 
ing the  large  houses  down  on  him  with  a  petition 
to  the  Lord  Chamberlain.  The  patentees  com- 
plain that  they  find  "their  long  established  patent 
rights  destroyed,  upon  the  faith  of  which  a  mil- 
lion of  money  have  been  embarked  in  their  two 
theatres,"  and  that  they  must  suffer  "  certain 
ruin  "  if  the  Olympic  and  Sans  Pareil  were  al- 
lowed to  continue.  The  Sans  Pareil  was  probably 
included  in  the  complaint  as  a  mere  blind  to 
cover  the  enmity  of  the  patentees  for  the  Olympic. 
Elliston  came  out  with  an  answer  to  this  memo- 
rial, in  a  manner  so  characteristic  as  to  bear 
quoting  in  part.  He  denied  that  the  minors  had 
commenced  the  system  of  encroachments, —  these 

1  Viz.,  Feb.  9,  16,  19,  23,  28,  March  2,  5,  9,  27,  April  3, 
10,  15.  See  Morning  Chronicle  for  dates.  Fazio  was  revived 
at  Covent  Garden  on  the  12th  of  February,  1831.  Morning 
Chronicle,  February  13,  1831. 


300  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

tactics  had  originated  with  the  patentees.  "  The 
Patent  Theatres  have  become  theatres  for  the 
display  of  the  iri^egular  drama,"  said  Elliston  in 
his  reply.  "  The  encroachment  was,  in  truth, 
commenced  by  the  Patent  Theatres  on  the  Minor 
Theatres,  and  not  by  the  Minor  Theatres  on  the 
Patent  Theatres ;  and  it  was  in  the  rage  of  en- 
grossing the  whole  store  of  stage  exhibition, 
from  the  deep  pathos  of  tragedy  to  the  highest 
flights  of  tight-rope  dancing — from  the  amblings 
of  the  poet  to  the  amblings  of  the  riding-horse  — 
from  the  splendid  illusions  of  the  scene-painter  to 
the  sloppings  of  the  stage  with  '  real  water '  — 
from  the  Attic  playfulness  of  '  Congreve  '  to  the 
more  congenial  playfulness  of  '  Puss  in  Boots.'. .  . 
"  Posture-masters  must  be  found  (for  the  Mi- 
nor Theatres),  who  should  writhe  themselves  into 
more  contortions  than  Mr.  Pack  was  employed 
to  do  on  the  stage  of  the  Theatre  Royal,  Drury 
Lane :  dogs  must  be  found  who  should  bark 
more  eloquently  than  the  '  Dog  of  Montarges ' 
was  engaged  to  do  on  the  stage  of  the  Theatre 
Royal,  Covent  Garden  :  Children  ^  must  be 
found  to  support  the  dignity  of  the  Minor  Stage, 

^  The  craze  for  child  actors  began  when  Master  Betty  made 
his  appearance  in  1804,  and  continued  to  revive,  on  occasion, 
as  late  as  1830,  when  Master  Burke  represented  Shylock  at 
one  of  the  patent  houses.  The  climax  of  this  folly  may  be 
found  in  an  advertisement  in  June,  1807,  when  Miss  Biddy 
(four  years  old)  was  announced  as  Caliban ! 


MAJORS  VS.  MINORS  301 

as  effectually  as  '  the  dignity '  of  '  the  great 
national  concern  '  of  Drury  Lane  was  supported, 
lately,  by  the  little  girl  who  personated  '  Kichard 
the  Third : '  horses  must  be  found  to  prance,  if 
possible,  more  classically  than  those  that  sus- 
tained the  '  regular '  and  '  national  drama '  of 
'Timour  the  Tartar.'  Poor  Mr.  Astley!  (the 
original  proprietor  of  the  Olympic)  used  to  ex- 
claim pathetically, '  Why  do  they  take  my  horses? 
I  never  tried  to  engage  Mrs.  Siddons.'  "  ^ 

Notwithstanding  the  burlesque  running 
through  this  defense,  it  is,  in  the  main,  true 
to  actual  conditions,  and  so  forcibly  did  Elliston 
impress  this  fact  on  the  Lord  Chamberlain's 
understanding  that  he  was  persuaded  to  sustain 
the  Olympic  manager  in  his  course.  The  public, 
too,  felt  that  the  action  of  the  patentees  was  par- 
ticularly ill-advised  at  that  time.  One  of  their 
pleas  had  been  that  the  two  minors  (Olympic 
and  Sans  Pareil)  customarily  took  in  X150  night- 
ly at  their  doors,  thus  depriving  the  two  winter 
houses  of  "  their  chance  of  profit  and  the  means 
of  supporting  the  dignity  of  the  national  drama." 
This  was  a  weak  admission,  in  view  of  the  fact 
that  the  success  of  the  minors  was  due  to  their 
acting  plays  similar  to  those  at  the  patent  houses,^ 

1  New  Monthly  Magazine,  1829,  pt.  i,  p.  176 ;  Life  of  Ellis- 
ton,  p.  251. 

2  See  letter  of  "T.  B."  in  Literary  Journal,  August  29, 1818.  It 


302  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

and  it  was  on  this  evidence  that  EUiston  main- 
tained his  position. 

Towards  the  close  of  the  following  year  (1819) 
the  patentees  again  bi-oke  out  in  opposition  to 
the  minors,  intending  utterly  to  exterminate 
them.  Threats  were  made  of  restricting  the 
lesser  theatres  to  the  old  mummery  of  dumb 
show,  a  taste  for  which  the  pubKc  had  long  since 
outgrown,  and  which  would  have  been  tolerated 
only  in  a  Bartholomew  Fair.  The  Coburg  man- 
ager (Glossop)  retorted  to  these  menaces,  and 
"  Dramaticus  "  defended  the  minors  in  a  letter 
to  the  "Literary  Chronicle  "  (January  22, 1820). 
The  monopoly  was  fiercely  attacked,  and  the 
growing  jealousy  of  the  patentees  was  accounted 
for  by  the  respectability  of  the  minors.  It  was 
hoped  that,  if  conviction  followed  the  prosecu- 
tion of  the  minors,  legislation  would  result, 
making  future  outrages  of  the  kind  impossible. 

But  the  time  had  passed  for  annihilating  the 
minors.  Neither  the  strength  of  the  patent 
houses  nor  the  inclination  of  public  opinion  would 
justify  such  extreme  measures.  The  patentees 
might  pester  the  small  theatres  with  persecutions, 
but  the  minors  were  now  too  numerous  and  too 

is  amusing  to  observe  the  change  of  front  EUiston  assumed 
within  a  year  from  this  time.  We  have  already  seen  the 
hauteur  which,  as  lessee  of  Drury  Lane,  he  displayed  towards 
the  minors. 


MAJORS   VS.  MINORS  303 

vigorous  to  be  driven  from  the  field.  In  1819 
the  Surrey  and  the  Coburg  closed  their  doors 
only  two  weeks,  and  then  only  to  be  refurbished 
for  the  Easter  performances,  opening  again  on 
the  12th  of  April.  At  the  Surrey  "  the  House 
was  well  filled,  and  the  curtain  fell  amidst  peals 
of  applause."  At  the  Coburg  "  the  house  was 
crowded  to  excess,  and  augured  a  successful 
season."  Even  the  amphitheatre  "notwithstand- 
ing the  wetness  of  the  night  was  well  filled."  Such 
is  the  flattering  testimony  of  one  of  the  leading 
papers  of  the  day.^  The  other  minors,  too,  were 
in  the  line  of  progress,  commanding  the  attention 
of  the  theatre-going  public,  and  of  the  critics. 
"The  houses  usually  designated  Minor ^''  com- 
ments one  of  the  editors  of  the  dramatic  column 
of  the  "  Literary  Chronicle  "  (December  4, 1819), 
"  continue  to  display  an  activity  which  we  should 
like  to  see  imitated  by  less  humble  establishments. 
.  .  .  New  pieces  have  been  produced  at  the  Adel- 
phi^-  the  Coburg,  the  East  London,  and  Astley^s 
theatres,  all  of  which  have  been  successful  and 
continue  to  attract  crowded  houses."  In  one  issue 
of  the  "  London  Magazine  "  (March,  1820)  fif- 
teen  columns    are  devoted   to  a  review  of   the 

1  London  Chronicle,  April  13,  1819. 

2  In  1819  Jones  and  Rodwell  leased  the  Sans  Pareil,  open- 
ing it  on  October  IS,  under  the  name  of  Adelphi.  The  East 
London  Theatre  was  the  same  as  the  Royalty. 


304  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

minors  ;  and  though  some  severe  criticism  is 
passed  (on  the  low  order  of  the  audiences  at  the 
Coburg,  for  example),  a  spirit  of  praise  dom- 
inates the  article.  Alluding  to  the  East  London 
Theatre  the  critic  laconically  disposes  of  it  in 
this  significant  passage :  "  It  is  sufficient  to  ob- 
serve that  Mr.  liae  is  the  principal  tragic  actor 
there,  and  Mr.  Peter  Moore  the  chief  manager. 
After  this,  is  it  to  be  wondered  at  that  Covent 
Garden  is  almost  deserted,  and  that  Mr.  Ellis- 
ton  cannot  yet  afford  to  give  up  the  practice  of 
puffing  at  the  bottom  of  his  play -bills !  "  At  the 
Coburg,  T.  P.  Cooke  was  giving  vigor  and 
success  to  the  new  establishment  by  his  acting. 

Even  Sadler's  Wells  caught  the  spirit  of  the 
time,  erected  a  respectable  new  building,  ban- 
ished buffoonery,  made  an  approach  to  the  reg- 
ular drama,  and  so  improved  the  character  of 
its  dramatis  "personae  that  the  old  complaint  of 
vitiated  taste  and  bad  morals  attaching  to  the 
establishment  was  dispelled.^  But  the  Olympic 
probably  led  the  minors  in  competition,  taking 
rank  with  Covent  Garden.  "  Too  much  praise, " 
says  one  of  the  periodicals  of  the  time,  "  cannot 
be  given  to  the  taste  and  liberality  of  the  new 
proprietors,-  who    .  .  .  have  at  once  put  their 

^  Literary  Chronicle,  September  23,  1820. 
2  WhenEUiston  took  Drury  Lane  Theatre  (1819)  he  leased 
the  Olympic  to  Messrs.  Barlow  and  Reeve  for  ten  years. 


MAJORS   VS.  MINORS  305 

theatre  on  an  equal  footing  with  their  winter 
rival.  In  no  respect  but  in  size  does  the  Olympic 
differ  from  the  patent  habitation  of  the  Muses ; 
and  how  far  this  is  a  disadvantage  still  remains 
a  point  of  question.  We  must  confess  our  own 
prejudices  are  and  have  been  strongly  in  favour 
of  Coveut  Garden,  but  the  public  feeling  goes 
evidently  with  the  smaller  houses  :  the  Olympic 
has  been  nightly  crowded  to  excess,  and  people 
have  been  regularly  dismissed  in  crowds  for 
want  of  room."^ 

The  Adelphi  also  deserves  special  mention 
as  early  manifesting  a  respectability,  making  it 
a  dangerous  rival  to  the  "  great  houses."  Under 
the  management  of  Jones  and  Kodwell,  the 
Adelphi  was  put  into  condition  for  attracting 
public  attention,  thougli  possibly  with  too  much 
of  the  tinsel  about  it  to  rank  it  with  the  Olympic 
or  the  Little  Theatre  in  the  Haymarket.^  It 
was  under  the  managership  of  Terry  that  the 
Adelphi  pulled  away  from  the  majority  of  the 
minors,  and  took  its  place  along  with  the  Olym- 
pic as  a  formidable  rival  of  the  patent  houses.^ 
Under  Yates  and  Mathews,  the  Adelphi  was 
finally  put  in  the  first  rank  by  public  favor.  "  I 
trust  you  do  not  put  the  Adelphi  on  a  level  with 

^  Lady^s  Magazine,  October,  1820. 
2  See  Examiner  for  October  28,  1821. 
2  European  Magazine,  February,  1826. 


306  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

its  restricted  neighbours,"  complains  a  "Play- 
goer" to  the  "  Tatler  "  (November  17,  1830)  for 
not  printing  the  complete  play-bill  of  that  theatre. 
"  Can  Covent  Garden  produce  a  list  of  comedians 
equal  to  Mathews,  Yates,  Reeve,  Buckstone,  and 
Wilkinson  ?  "  And  another  enthusiast  breaks 
out,  "  We  must  observe,  that  the  acting  of  Mrs. 
Yates  in  a  domestic  tragedy  (as  it  is  termed) 
called  Grace  Huntley^  at  the  Adelphi,  is  just  as 
near  perfection  as  anything  on  a  stage  can  be. 
She  is  a  Garrick  in  petticoats.  .  .  .  "  ^  For 
the  ten  years  following  the  beginnings  of  this 
rapid  rise  of  the  minors  into  prominence,  the 
newspapers  and  magazines  were  filled  with  a 
marked  approval  of  the  tendency,  similar  to 
that  shown  in  the  few  excerpts  quoted. 

The  patent  houses  did  not  seem  to  decline  in 
proportion  to  the  growing  importance  of  the 
minors.  The  Keans  and  the  Kembles  had  kept 
the  old  hulks  from  sinking ;  but  the  successes 
of  the  patent  houses  during  this  period  were 
merely  temporary.  Some  good  days  were  yet 
before  the  "great  houses,"  but  this  served  only 
to  bring  out  the  decadence  which  was  upon  the 
old  establishments.  The  harbinger  of  this  de- 
cline may  be  traced  from  the  beginning  of  the 
century,  but  certainly  nowhere  more  distinctly 
than  in  the  brilliant  recklessness  of  Elliston's 
^  iyTew  Monthly  Magazine  for  1833,  pt.  iii,  p.  351. 


MAJORS  VS.   MINORS  307 

managership  of  Drury  Lane  Theatre,  —  cover- 
ing the  very  years  when  the  minors  were  getting 
into  line  for  the  final  conflict.  ' '  These  thea- 
tres," says  "  Tait's  "  (November,  1832),  remark- 
ing on  the  minors,  "  from  their  number,  and 
supported  by  the  talent  consequent  on  competi- 
tion, have  assumed  a  position  formidable  to  the 
patent  houses  by  rivalry  in  excellence,  and  im- 
portant to  the  public  in  opening  up  new  chan- 
nels for  the  efflux  of  amusements,  '  various  yet 
the  same,'  and  of  far  more  attainable  price. 
Within  the  last  three  or  four  years  they  have 
challenged  an  attention  they  seldom  previously 
received,  and  rarely  deserved ;  and  by  unceas- 
ing and  well-directed  efforts  have  at  length 
fairly  effected  a  more  than  equal  division  in  the 
public  patronage.  .  .  .  There  is  at  this  moment 
scarcely  a  minor  theatre  in  London  that  does 
not  possess  one  or  more  stars,  persons  of  estab- 
lished celebrity  either,  or  of  rapidly  rising 
reputation."  Liston,  Mrs.  Orger,  and  Madame 
Vestris  were  at  the  Olympic ;  at  the  Surrey 
were  Osbaldison  and  Mrs.  West ;  Sadler's 
Wells  boasted  Mrs.  Fitzwilliams ;  while  the 
Strand  (recently  founded  by  Rayner)  was  "  a 
practical  refutation  to  the  arguments  of  the 
monopolists,  and  a  crying  rebuke  to  illiberal 
licensers." 

This  fairly  won  position  was  not  reached,  how- 


308  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

ever,  without  many  a  tilt  with  the  patentees, 
who,  the  nearer  they  approached  their  doom, 
grew  the  fiercer  towards  the  minors.  In  1826 
the  old  contest  between  the  winter  and  summer 
houses  (among  which  latter  were  numbered  va- 
rious of  the  minors)  broke  out  again.'  Led  on 
by  the  Adelphi  and  Surrey,  where  tragedy, 
comedy,  opera,  farce,  and  melodrama  were  pro- 
duced in  giddy  succession,  the  lesser  establish- 
ments bade  defiance  to  the  patentees,  and  courted 
the  penalties  of  the  law  regulating  theatricals.^ 
Some  of  the  minor  managers  became  so  fearless 
in  the  game  against  the  patent  houses  that  they 
had  a  special  clause  inserted  in  the  articles  of 
the  actors,  guaranteeing  the  latter  against  arrest 
while  the  "  business  "  of  the  stage  was  in  prog- 
ress. In  other  words,  arrangements  were  se- 
cured with  the  officers  of  the  law  whereby  a  writ 
might  wait  the  pleasure  of  the  actor  before  being 
served.^  Various  other  schemes  were  adopted 
for  evading  the  law,  while  in  some  instances,  as 
already  mentioned,  no  attempt  was  made  by  the 
managfers  to  screen  themselves  from  the  wrath 

1  In  the  Wasp  for  October  21,  1826,  there  is  a  sharp  bur- 
lesque on  the  patentees  for  their  action  on  this  occasion. 

2  New  Monthly  Magazine,  December,  1828,  pt.  iii,  p.  528. 
Elliston  was  once  more  back  at  the  Surrey,  whither  he  went 
after  failing  at  Dniry  Lane  in  1826. 

^  This  was  related  of  the  Victoria  (t.  e.  Coburg)  especially. 
See  New  Monthly  Magazine,  1836,  pt.  iii,  p.  171. 


MAJORS  VS.  MINORS  309 

of  the  patentees.  Occasionally,  however,  they 
went  too  far  in  their  bold  defiance  (feeling  safe 
in  the  protection  of  public  opinion),  and  made 
the  opportunity  too  strong  an  invitation  for  the 
patentees  to  pounce  upon  them  in  revenge. 

In  1830  such  an  opportunity  was  afforded  the 
patent  houses,  and  they  were  not  long  in  availing 
themselves  of  it.  The  persecutions  begun  at  this 
time  developed  into  a  crusade  against  the  minors, 
which  scarcely  ceased  for  the  next  five  or  six 
years,  and  was  influential  in  hastening  the  down- 
fall of  the  established  theatres.  The  first  object 
of  attack  singled  out  by  the  patentees  was 
Chapman,  manager  of  the  Tottenham  Street 
Theatre.  Information  was  laid  against  him  by 
the  large  theatres,  charging  him  with  giving 
stage  entertainments  without  a  license  from  the 
Lord  Chamberlain.  That  the  charge  was  true 
was  notorious.  An  examination  of  the  play-bills 
suffices  to  prove  that  something  more  than  "  danc- 
ing, singing,  and  dumb  shows"  wei-e  represented 
at  the  theatre  in  Tottenham  Street.  However, 
as  the  result  of  a  technical  slip,  the  patentees 
were  unable  to  prove  what  everybody  knew  to  be 
a  fact,  and  the  information  against  Chapman  was 
dismissed  by  the  Bow  Street  magistrate.  At  once 
mending  their  case,  the  monopolists  made  another 
trial;  but  in  the  opinion  of  the  Justice,  they 
did  not   mend   it   aright ;  and   the    Tottenham 


310  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

company  were  free  to  practice  the  old  offenses 
over  again.  ^ 

As  a  matter  of  legal  justice,  there  can  be  no 
doubt  that  the  patentees  were  in  the  right ;  but 
the  sympathy  of  the  public  was  almost  wholly 
opposed  to  the  law,  and  the  police  court  simply 
echoed  the  sentiment  of  the  public  when  it  dis- 
missed Chapman.  The  more  sober-minded,  how- 
ever, who  believed  in  enforcing  law  so  long 
as  it  remained  on  the  statute-books,  thought 
that  the  patentees  had  not  received  fair  treat- 
ment, either  from  the  court  or  from  the  assem- 
bled auditors.  The  treatment  of  C.  Kemble,  of 
Covent  Garden,  and  his  counsel  on  this  occasion 
was  especially  rude,  the  crowd  breaking  out  into 
jeers  and  insults  against  them.  But  the  managers 
of  the  great  houses  were  not  to  be  browbeaten 
after  any  such  fashion.  Stinging  under  defeat 
and  the  taint  of  obloquy,  the  patentees  bided 
their  time  for  revenge.  Meantime  the  Tottenham 
Theatre  pursued  its  course  in  boastful  safety. 

For  nearly  six  months  the  affairs  of  Chapman 
continued  in  a  prosperous  condition.  But  on  the 
6th  of  December  (1830)  the  following  adver- 
tisement of  his  theatre  appeared  in  the  daily 
papers :  "  Last  night  but  Five  of  the  present 

^  New  Monthly  Magazine,  August,  1830 ;  London  correspond- 
ent in  Edinburgh  Literary  Journal,  July  S,  December  -4,  1830. 
See  also  case  of  Patentees  vs.  Chapman. 


MAJORS  VS.   MINORS  311 

Company's  performing.  A  full  explanation  of 
the  causes  which  have  led  to  this  sudden  result 
will  be  given  to  the  Public  in  the  Bills  of  Thurs- 
day next."  On  the  same  day  announcement  was 
made  that  the  Tottenham  Theatre  had  been 
leased  for  twenty-one  years  by  George  MacFar- 
ren,  who,  it  was  reported,  had  secui'ed  Winston 
as  manager.  On  Saturday  evening,  December 
11  (1830),  the  theatre  closed.*  After  the  per- 
formance, W.  Vining,  in  behalf  of  the  proprietors 
(Melrose  and  Chapman),  explained  to  the  audi- 
ence the  circumstance  causing  the  theatre  to  be 
closed.  This  had  been  due  to  an  information 
(the  third)  laid  by  the  patentees  against  the  man- 
agers for  representing  the  regular  drama  in  vio- 
lation of  the  Licensing  Act.  This  time  the  pat- 
entees had  been  cautious  enough  to  carry  their 
suit  to  Lord  Tenterden  of  the  King's  Bench,  a 
man  noted  for  his  scrupulous  integrity  in  inter- 
preting the  law.  There  was  but  one  course  open 
to  such  a  judge,  the  defendants  were  found 
guilty ;  and  the  Tottenham  Theatre  was  closed. 
This  decision  was  the  occasion  of  an  outburst 
of  indignation  against  the  monopoly.  The  ulti- 
mate decision,  it  was  declared,  would  be  influ- 
enced mainly  by  public  opinion  —  and  that  was 
strongly  opposed  to  every  species  of  monopoly. 
People  would  not  permit  their  enjoyments  to  be 
*  Morning  Chronicle,  under  dates. 


312  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

restricted  because  of  some  antiquated  act  of 
Parliament,  the  operations  of  which  were  un- 
equal. No  one  would  dream  of  contending, 
continued  the  argument  in  favor  of  the  minors, 
that  some  people  have  a  right  to  the  con- 
venience of  a  theatre  at  their  door,  while 
others  ought  to  be  precluded  from  such  privi- 
leges. ^  The  feeling  against  the  theatrical  monop- 
oly ran  so  high  that  a  remonstrance  meeting 
was  finally  called  at  the  Albion  Tavern,  in  the 
interests  of  the  dramatists  and  minor  manajjers. 
Serle,  the  dramatist,  delivered  an  effective 
speech,  and  Webster,  Rayuer,  Davidge,  and 
others,  interested  in  theatrical  property  outside 
the  patent  houses,  vented  their  opinions  on  the 
occasion.  The  result  of  this  discussion  took 
form  in  a  series  of  resolutions.  These  called 
attention  to  the  respectability  of  the  minors  ; 
the  injustice  of  the  prosecutions  brought  against 
them ;  the  perverted  uses  to  which  the  patents 
had  been  put,  and  the  changed  conditions  in  the 
metropolis  demanding  an  abolition  of  the  mo- 
nopoly ;  ending  with  an  appeal  to  the  press  to 
assist  the  cause  of  the  minors,  and  a  determina- 
tion to  petition  King  and  Parliament  for  a  re- 
peal of  the  restrictive  laws.^ 

1  Tatler,  December  22,  1831. 

2  Tatler,  December  26,  1831 ;  Gentleman's  Magazine,  vol. 
ci,  pt.  2,  Supplement,  p.  643  ;  Ladies'  Museum,  January,  1832. 


MAJORS  VS.  MINORS  313 

Much  was  looked  for  from  the  contemplated 
petition  of  the  minors,  not  only  for  the  theatres 
themselves,  but  for  authors  as  well.  For  it 
seemed  certain  that  the  claims  of  the  latter  to 
protection  must  enter  into  any  parliamentary 
discussion  of  the  state  of  the  drama.  Relative 
to  this  meeting  of  the  minor  managers  a  writer 
in  the  "  New  Monthly  Magazine  "  for  February, 
1832,  says,  "  That  the  law  must  afford  these 
establishments  protection  is  evident ;  and  from 
the  convenient  dimensions  of  these  theatres,  .  .  . 
it  is  probable  that  a  revival  of  the  genuine 
English  drama  will  take  place  ;  by  the  equity  of 
the  legislature  may  the  hope  of  the  dramatist 
at  length  be  realized."  And  the  belief  was 
expressed  that  the  time  was  at  last  at  hand  to 
breakdown  the  monopoly  of  the  "great  thea- 
tres "  that  had  degraded  the  drama  and  forced 
the  actor  to  substitute  trickery  for  talent.  But 
more  of  this  in  another  place.  On  leaving  the 
Tottenham  Street  Theatre,  Chapman  took  ref- 
uge in  a  building  in  Grub  (Milton)  Sti-eet  that 
had  been  but  the  year  before  (1829)  converted 
from  a  chapel  into  a  theatre,  called  the  City 
Theatre  (later,  the  City  Pantheon).  Bvit  the 
patentees  followed  him  up  and  compelled  him 
to  abandon  the  business  of  a  manager. 

A  number  of  new  minors  sprang  up  about  this 
time.    The  Pavilion,  in  the  ghetto  quarters,  was 


314  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

opened  in  1829  by  Wyatt  and  Farrell.  The 
following  year  the  Garrick  was  opened  in  Leman 
Street,  near  the  site  of  thq  Royalty  Theatre  and 
that  of  the  Goodman's  Fields,  where  Garrick 
had  made  his  debut  to  a  London  audience. 
Braham,  the  tenor,  began  his  St.  James  Theatre 
in  1835,  and  the  City  of  London  Theatre  (Norton 
Folgate)  also  started  that  same  year.  Two  years 
later  the  Royal  Standard  was  added  to  the  list. 
But  by  far  the  most  important  of  these  recruits 
was  Rayner's  New  Subscription  Theatre  in  the 
Strand.  This  theatre  had  been  used,  prior  to 
1831,  for  panoramic  exhibitions,  but  in  that 
year  Rayner,  the  impersonator,  converted  it 
into  a  theatre  and  opened  it  on  the  25th  of  Jan- 
uary, 1832,  without  the  Lord  Chamberlain's 
license.  The  proprietor  attempted  to  evade  the 
law  by  the  stratagem  of  selling  his  tickets  of 
admission  at  a  neighboring  chocolate-house,  it 
being  understood  that  the  audience  should  be 
admitted  gratis,  after  purchasing  a  ticket  as 
aforesaid. 

This  bold  ruse  was  more  than  the  patentees 
could  stand,  and,  as  their  blood  was  already  up 
from  the  contest  with  Chapman,  they  caused 
informations  to  be  laid  against,  and  warrants  to 
be  issued  for  the  arrest  of  Mrs.  AVaylett,  and 
Messrs.  Abbot  and  Keeley  for  acting  at  an  un- 
licensed theatre.  The  change  of  tactics,  from  in- 


MAJORS   VS.  MINORS  315 

forming  against  the  manager  of  a  minor  theatre 
to  laying  their  charges  against  the  actors,  had 
been  suggested  as  a  result  of  their  numerous  suits 
against  Chapman  (and  others)  before  getting  a 
decision  in  their  favor.  Furthermore,  it  occurred 
to  them  that  the  penalty  for  violating  the  "  for 
hire,  gain,  or  reward  "  clause  applied  as  strin- 
gently to  all  the  actors  as  to  the  one  manager. 
Hence  more  damage  would  be  caused  the  minors 
by  the  course  adopted  on  the  present  occasion. 
But  no  sooner  had  the  patentees  taken  this  step 
than  they  saw  their  blunder,  for  it  was  no  easy 
matter  to  prove  that  the  actors  were  receiving 
any  benefits  from  the  chocolate-house  dodge,  or 
from  any  other  source. 

The  announcement  that  the  patentees  had  de- 
termined on  prosecuting  the  Strand  actors  was 
made  at  the  annual  meeting  of  the  Drury  Lane 
Committee,  July  7,  1832,  but  the  few  members 
present  showed  little  interest  in  the  warlike 
proclamation,  which  grew  out  of  Captain  Polhill's 
plea  of  his  inability  to  pay  the  entire  amount 
of  the  rental  due  on  Drury  Lane,  owing  to  the 
formidable  rivalry  of  the  minor  theatres.^  There 
seems  to  have  been  a  good  deal  of  halting  and 
cross-purpose  action  on  the    part   of    the  com- 

^  This  account  follows  the  reports  given  in  the  Morning 
Chronicle  for  July  9,  16,  23,  1832.  Captain  Polhill  was  at  this 
time  lessee  of  Drury  Lane  Theatre. 


316  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

mittee  against  the  Strand  actors,  for  in  a  short 
time  after  the  report  that  a  prosecution  was  in 
hand  it  was  suddenly  given  out  that  the  coun- 
sel for  the  patentees  had  found  themselves 
wrong  in  their  course,  and  that  the  threatened 
prosecution  had  been  abandoned.  To  protect 
themselves  from  ridicule,  the  Drury  Lane  Com- 
mittee caused  it  to  be  noised  about  that  their 
menace  was  only  intended  for  a  joke.  But  every- 
body knew  that  the  monopolists  were  in  no  jocose 
mood,  and  it  was  asserted,  by  those  who  pre- 
tended to  know,  that  the  prosecution  had  been 
stopped,  not  because  the  patentees  were  afraid 
they  could  not  convict  the  Strand  actors,  but 
because  the  query  would  be  forthcoming  why 
they  had  not  resorted  to  this  plain  and  simple 
remedy  years  before,  instead  of  complaining 
that  the  law  was  not  sufficient  to  protect  their 
property. 

Whatever  the  cause,  the  Strand  prosecution 
was,  for  the  moment,  dropped.  In  the  ensuing 
autumn  (1832),  at  their  regular  meeting  for 
licensing  theatres,  the  Middlesex  magistrates 
refused  to  grant  any  privileges  to  the  Strand 
proprietor.  Nothing  daunted  by  this  rebuff,  the 
manager  continued  to  keep  open  his  theatre  after 
the  manner  devised  at  the  first,^  until  informa- 
tion was  laid  against  Davenporl;  (manager  of  a 

^  Lady's  Mayazine,  November,  1832. 


MAJORS  VS.  MINORS  317 

minor  called  The  Westminster,  then  but  recently- 
erected  in  York  Street),  followed  by  his  convic- 
tion, when  it  closed.  In  the  following  year  Miss 
Kelly  apjjlied  for  a  license  to  open  the  Strand, 
but  she  also  was  refused,  probably  because  the 
committee  in  Parliament  in  charge  of  Bulwer's 
Dramatic  Performance  Bill  (to  be  considered  in 
the  next  chapter)  had  not  included  the  Strand 
in  its  recommended  schedule  of  London  theatres. 
This  action  of  the  committee  involved  not  only 
the  Strand  Theatre,  but  also  the  two  other  the- 
atres recently  established  (the  City  of  London, 
and  the  Garrick).  This  treatment  was  looked 
upon  as  a  great  injustice ;  for  although  the  per- 
formances at  the  Strand  were  not  of  the  hijjhest 
dramatic  order,  "  surely,"  says  the  "  Observer," 
"these  are  not  times  for  drawing  nice  distinc- 
tions ;  and  everybody  will  acknov/ledge  them  to 
be  a  vast  deal  more  '  legitimate,'  entertaining, 
and  useful,  than  half  the  performances  at  the 
two  soi-disant  Patent  Theatres  during  the 
whole  of  last  season."  ^  Unwilling  to  take  chances 
on  the  methods  pursued  by  Rayner,  Miss  Kelly 
began  a  series  of  mono-dramatic  entertainments 
for  that  summer. 

The  precarious  tenure  on  which   the  Strand 
was  compelled  to  operate,  if  at  all,  caused  it  to 
change  hands  frequently.    On  the  30th  of  Sep- 
1  Quoted  in  Morning  Chronicle,  July  1,  1833. 


318  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

tember,  1833,  it  opened  under  the  management 
of  Messrs.  Wrench  and  Kussell.  The  perform- 
ance on  this  occasion  began  with  an  address 
intended  to  burlesque  the  struggle  between  the 
majors  and  minors.  The  competition  of  the  the- 
atres was  described  in  the  language  of  a  sailing 
match.  The  inequality  of  opportunity  given  the 
"  vessels "  was  emphasized,  and  the  hits  at  the 
patent  houses  were  frequent  and  pointed.^  The 
operations  of  the  new  managers  came  to  a  sud- 
den standstill,  however,  within  a  few  weeks  after 
the  opening.  The  official  attention  of  the  Lord 
Chamberlain  (Duke  of  Devonshire)  was  called 
to  the  fact  that,  notwithstanding  the  recent  con- 
viction of  Davenport  in  the  Court  of  Common 
Pleas,  the  Strand  was  again  open  with  dramatic 
entertainments.  To  avoid  prosecution  the  man- 
agers were  compelled  to  close  their  theatre.  The 
"Observer  "hastened  to  explain  that  "it  will  be 
perceived  at  once  that  the  circumstances  con- 
nected with  the  Strand  Theatre  are  peculiar,  and 
such  as  do  not  belong  to  any  other  place  of  amuse- 
ment, whether  licensed  or  unlicensed,  in  the 
Kingdom.  It  does  not  by  any  means  follow  that 
the  Duke  of  Devonshire  is  to  embroil  himself 
with  other  Minor  Theatres  in  the  metropolis, 
when  the  law  has  pointed  out  a  short  and  clear 
remedy  should  parties  interested  in  licensed 
^  Morning  Chronicle,  October  1,  1833. 


MAJORS  VS.  MINORS  319 

houses  think  it  worth  while  to  proceed  against 
them." ' 

Fifty  persons  were  thrown  out  of  employment 
by  the  closing  of  the  Strand  Theatre.  The  per- 
sonal character  of  Russell,  the  celerity  with  which 
he  obeyed  the  suggestion  of  the  Lord  Chamber- 
lain to  discontinue  his  performances,  together 
with  the  spirited  and  honest  endeavor  he  piit 
forth  to  give  employment  to  his  company  of  act- 
ors, merited,  and  received,  the  sympathy  of  the 
public.  Notwithstanding  the  open  lawlessness 
which  had  attended  the  managership  of  the  Strand 
thus  far,  the  circumstance  of  the  numerous  pros- 
ecutions of  the  actors  and  managers  was  an  ulti- 
mate victory  for  the  minors. 

But  the  ill-starred  Strand  was  destined  to 
further  persecutions  by  the  patentees.^  Early  in 
1835  we  find  this  diatribe  against  the  powers 
that  were  :  "  The  Chamberlain,  the  Mashes,  and 
their  myrmidons,  common  injbrmers,  to  wit,  are 
arrayed  in  battle  against  this  neat  and  well-con- 
ducted little  theatre.  The  Duke  of  Devonshire 
evinced  some  degree  of  delicacy  in  his  official 
capacity,  for  though  he  suffered  the  theatre  to  be 
prosecuted,  he  would  neither  suffer  his  name  to 

*  Quoted  in  Morning  Chronicle,  October  21,  1833. 

2  After  the  closing'  of  the  theatre  in  1833  Russell  began  to 
give  some  dramatic  monologues,  modeled  on  Mathew's  "An- 
nual." Morning  Chronicle,  November  26,  1833. 


320  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

appear  in  it  or  allow  the  solicitor  for  the  office  to 
conduct  the  case.  .  .  .  Williams  and  Forrester 
are  summoned  to  Bow  Street  on  Tuesday  next, 
and  we  trust  their  defence  will  be  such  as  to  show 
clearly  to  the  world  the  rottenness  of  the  cause 
against  them,  and  cover  their  prosecutors  with 
shame.  If  the  actors  are  convicted,  there  is  not 
a  minor  theatre  in  London  that  will  remain  un- 
attacked." 

After  needless  delays,  the  two  actors  were 
tried,^  and,  following  the  precedent  of  the  previ- 
ous Strand  cases,  there  was  but  one  verdict  open 
to  the  Justices.  If  Rayner,  Davenport,  and 
Russell  had  been  guilty  of  violating  the  Licens- 
ing Act,  so  had  Williams  and  Forrester. 

It  would  seem  that  such  a  record  of  misfor- 
tune from  the  outset  would  deter  theatrical  as- 
pirants from  undertaking  the  management  of 
the  Strand.  However,  such  was  not  the  case. 
At  the  beginning  of  1836  MacFarren,  the 
actor,  gave  out  that  he  would  open  the  theatre 
on  the  11th  of  January.  This  date  was  post- 
poned to  the  16th,  when  the  Strand  was  opened 
on  the  plan  of  an  Italian  theatre.  But  it  was 
no  sooner  open  than  an  order  came  from  the 
Lord  Chamberlain's  office  commanding  that  its 
doors  be  shut.^     The  story  of  the  struggle  grows 

1  Examiner,  February  15,  22,  1835. 
^  Spectator,  January  9,  16,  23,  1836. 


MAJORS  VS.  MINORS  321 

monotonous.  The  opening  and  closing  of  the 
Strand  Theatre  for  the  first  four  years  of  its 
existence  followed  each  other  in  kaleidoscopic 
succession.  Within  two  weeks  after  MacFar- 
ren  was  driven  out,  Rayner  was  once  more  at 
the  old  stand  to  try  his  fortune,  but  succeeded 
only  in  adding  another  victory  to  the  majors.^ 
Finally,  on  the  accession  of  the  Marquis  of  Con- 
yngham  to  the  office  of  Chamberlain,  a  license 
was  granted  to  Rayner  for  the  Strand  Theatre, 
placing  it  on  equal  terms  with  the  most  favored 
of  the  minors,  the  Adelphi  and  Olympic.^  Soon 
after  this  the  management  of  the  Strand  passed 
into  the  hands  of  Douglas  Jerrold  and  his  son- 
in-law  Hanmiond,^  future  lessee  of  Drury  Lane 
Theatre,  under  whom  it  was  opened  on  Monday, 
April  25,  1836.  Jerrold  made  his  first  appear- 
ance as  an  actor  on  the  initial  evening. 

Once  more  before  the  downfall  of  the  monop- 
oly was  the  Strand  to  suffer  the  persecution  of 
the  patentees.  In  the  summer  of  1840  a  por- 
tion of  Hammond's  company  opened  the  theatre, 
but  it  was  suddenly  closed  in  consequence  of  an 
information  against  three  of  the  actors  for  play- 
ing for  hire  without  the  Lord  Chamberlain's 
license.     The  charge  was  not  proved,  the  Bow- 

^  Fraser's  Literary  Chronicle,  February  6,  1836. 

2  Examiner,  March  20, 1836. 

3  Spectator,  April  30,  1836. 


322  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

Street  magistrate  dismissed  the  defendants,  and 
the  informers  were  compelled  to  settle  the  costs. 
The  company,  however,  did  not  recommence 
their  performances  at  the  Strand,  the  heavy  pen- 
alties seeming  to  them  too  hazardyus.^  Mean- 
time other  theatrical  events  were  occurrine:  and 
combining  to  draw  the  long  struggle  for  a  free 
stage  to  a  close. 

1  Spectator,  August  22,  1840. 


CHAPTER  XII 

THE   DRAMATISTS   VS.    THE  MONOPOLY 

THE  new  school  of  dramatists  now  took  up 
the  fight  in  earnest  against  the  theatrical 
monopoly,  primarily  in  their  own  interests,  but 
unavoidably  involving  the  fortunes  of  the  minor 
theatres.  Since  the  "great  houses"  claimed  the 
exclusive  privilege  of  acting  the  national  drama, 
the  increasing  dramatic  output  was  limited  to  a 
narrow  field  of  available  demand.  Furthermore, 
under  the  monopoly,  which  might  (and  often 
did)  reject  good  plays,  —  knowing  that  they 
had  the  whole  range  to  choose  from, —  the 
dramatists  had  no  recourse,  with  their  unaccepted 
plays,  to  other  managers.  Carelessness  and 
ignorance  too  frequently  resulted  in  the  exam- 
ination of  dramas  under  the  patent  system,  with 
injustice  to  the  talents  of  aspiring  dramatists. 
Add  to  these  complaints  the  lack  of  copyright 
protection,  and  the  case  of  the  dramatic  writers 
will  appear  deserving  of  attention. 

The  dramatists  and  the  minors,  having  a 
common  cause  for  dissatisfaction,  now  joined 
forces  against  the  majors.  The  remonstrance 
meeting  held  towards  the  close  of  1831,  as  a 


324  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

result  of  the  Tottenham  Theatre  persecutions, 
was  led  by  Serle,  and  the  resolutions  passed  at 
that  time  were  drawn  up  by  him.  Out  of  this 
preliminary  meeting  sprang  another,  held  on 
the  24th  of  February,  1832,  at  the  City  of  Lon- 
don Tavern,  for  the  purpose  of  memorializing 
Parliament  "against  the  system  of  oppression 
which  has  so  long  fettered  and  discouraged 
dramatic  authors."  This  time,  Mr.  Edward 
Bulwer  presided,  and,  as  at  the  former  meeting, 
the  charges  against  the  monopoly  were  numer- 
ous and  vigorous.  "  Surely,"  writes  the  London 
correspondent  to  the  "  Edinburgh  Spectator" 
(March  3,  1832),  "it  is  but  just  to  require  that 
the  court  of  competition  be  open  to  all ;  that  a 
fair  reading  be  given  before  competent  judges, 
and  the  play,  if  approved,  be  submitted  to  a 
prompt  stage  trial ; "  and  the  effort  of  the 
dramatists  "to  emancipate  dramatic  genius 
from  the  monopoly  under  which  it  now  writhes  " 
is  highly  commended.  Moncrieff  gave  an  illus- 
tration of  the  methods  employed  by  the  pat- 
entees in  their  treatment  of  the  dramatists.  He 
had  submitted  a  play  to  Covent  Garden.  After 
waiting  an  unusual  time  for  a  reply,  he  finally 
demanded  a  return  of  the  piece.  After  much 
trouble  expended  in  searching  for  it,  he  re- 
ceived it  from  the  hands  of  the  fireman  at  the 
theatre,  who  had,  presumably,  been  appointed 


THE   DRAMATISTS  VS.  THE  MONOPOLY    325 

to  read  and  pass  judgment  on  it.  It  was  from 
the  indignity  and  injustice  such  as  this  that  the 
dramatists  now  determined  to  free  themselves. 

On  the  22d  of  May,  1832,  in  the  House  of 
Commons,  Bulwer  presented  a  petition  signed 
by  "  noblemen,  gentlemen,  merchants,  traders, 
and  others,  of  London,"  praying  for  a  repeal  of 
all  legislative  enactments  tending  to  restrict  the 
performance  of  the  drama  in  the  metropolis. 
Mr.  Bulwer  announced  his  intention  of  moving 
a  Select  Committee  to  examine  into  the  state  of 
dramatic  literature,  with  a  view  to  founding  a 
bill  upon  the  report.  The  member  (Mr.  Hunt) 
seconding  the  motion  went  straight  to  the  point, 
saying  that  it  was  high  time  the  monopoly  was 
abolished. 

The  proprietors  of  Drury  Lane  and  Covent 
Garden  Theatres  followed  this  action  with  a 
petition  (May  30)  praying  for  a  protection  of 
their  rights.  On  the  last  day  of  the  month 
Bulwer  brought  forward  his  motion  to  appoint 
a  Select  Committee  for  the  purpose  stated  above. 
It  was  thought,  at  the  time,  that  this  was  a  re- 
sult of  the  decision  against  the  minors  by  the 
Lord  Chancellor,  the  previous  year ;  but  that 
formed  but  a  single  factor  in  the  case,  and 
the  demand  for  investigating  the  dramatic 
situation  would  have  come  anyhow.  Bulwer 
prefaced   his   motion   by   a    long   and  forcible 


326  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

speech,  in  which  he  demonstrated  that  not 
only  had  the  conditions  producing  the  mo- 
nopoly ceased  long  since,  but  also  that  the 
monopoly  had  not  executed  the  function  in- 
trusted to  its  care,  —  the  support  and  dignity  of 
the  national  drama.  In  the  Restoration  period 
Davenant  had  been  guilty  of  resorting  to  scenic 
display  and  spectacular  exhibitions  ;  but  espe- 
cially during  the  period  immediately  preceding 
1832  the  patent  houses  had  been  prolific  of 
amusements  of  a  cheap  order.  Now,  therefore, 
argued  Mr.  Bulwer,  since  the  legislature  had 
protected  the  patent  theatres  in  their  vast  and 
exclusive  privileges,  for  the  sole  purpose  of 
maintaining  the  national  drama,  it  was  the  duty 
of  that  body  to  say  to  the  monopoly,  "Where 
are  the  plays  to  produce  and  encourage  which 
we  gave  you  the  exclusive  privilege  ?  Where 
are  the  immortal  tragedies,  where  are  the  chaste 
and  brilliant  comedies  ?  You  were  to  preserve 
the  dignity  of  the  drama  from  being  corrupted 
by  mountebank  actors  and  absurd  performances  ; 
you  have,  therefore,  we  trust,  driven  jugglers 
and  harlequins  from  the  national  stage ;  you 
have  admitted  no  wild  beasts ;  you  have  intro- 
duced no  fire-eaters  and  sword-swallowers ;  you 
have  preserved  the  dignity  of  the  national  drama 
inviolate  ;  you  have  left  it  such  as  it  was  when 
you  took  it  from  the  hands  of  Ben  Jonson  or 


THE   DRAMATISTS  VS.  THE  MONOPOLY    327 

Shakespeare  ;  for  if  you  have  not  done  this, 
then  you  have  not  fulfilled  that  object  for  vi^hich 
we  took  from  your  brethren  those  privileges  we 
have  intrusted  to  you."  ^ 

It  was  confidently  denied  that  the  objects  of 
the  monojioly  had  been  realized ;  and  to  enforce 
a  law  to  support  such  a  monopoly  was  a  "  mon- 
strous injustice  .  .  .  inflicted  on  the  public." 
Moreover  it  was  absurd  to  ask  the  theatre-goers 
of  London  to  tramp  from  every  quarter  of  the 
metropolis  to  Drury  Lane  and  Covent  Garden, 
and  when  there,  to  see,  not  a  tragedy  or  comedy, 
but  "  a  very  fine  scene  in  a  very  bad  melo-drama 
—  or,  perhaps,  if  they  were  in  eminent  luck,  a 
couple  of  lions  and  a  diorama  by  way  of  keeping 
up  the  national  drama."  The  size  of  the  patent 
theatres  had  been  largely  responsible,  it  was 
admitted,  for  this  state  of  affairs.  If,  as  the 
patentees  had  so  frequently  declared,  the  theatres 
had  been  enlarged  to  accommodate  the  increased 
population  of  the  metropolis,  that  fact,  as  well 
as  the  resulting  degraded  drama,  led  to  one  con- 
clusion :  more  theatres  were  needed,  and  they 
should  be  free  from  the  precarious  conditions 
then  existing.  If  it  were  retorted  to  this,  that 
the  minor  theatres  were  allowed  to  exist  in  spite 

^  Hansard^s  Debates,  3d  Series,  vol.  xiii,  239-259 ;  Mirror 
of  Parliament,  10th  Parliament,  2d  Sess.,  pp.  2154,  2344, 
2357. 


328  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

of  their  illegality,  then  the  rejoinder  was  at 
hand,  that  the  law  still  existed  on  the  statute- 
books,  making  the  tenure  of  the  minor  manager 
too  uncertain.  That  law,  if  enforced,  was  de- 
nounced as  unjust;  if  a  dead  letter,  it  was  a 
mockery.  The  law  must  be  defined,  demanded 
Bulwer.  The  public  should  know  which  theatres 
should  exist ;  the  actors,  which  plays  might  be 
performed.  As  the  law  then  stood,  it  was  "an 
iniquitous  uncertainty,  which,  while  it  rendered 
the  property  of  the  minor  theatres  so  precarious 
and  illegal,  frittered  away  by  contraband  far 
more  than  it  would  by  open  rivalry,  the  property 
of  the  great  theatres."  Endless  prosecutions  and 
constant  litigations  were  the  products  of  the 
laws  as  they  then  stood. 

The  office  of  examiner  of  plays  was  also  at- 
tacked as  a  useless  and  objectionable  feature  of  the 
dramatic  system.  Bulwer  insisted  that  "  the  only 
true  censor  of  the  age  was  the  spirit  of  the  age." 
The  public  and  the  press  were  thought  to  be 
better  censors  by  far  than  any  "  ignorant  and 
bungling  official  "  appointed  for  that  purpose. 
And  as  to  the  number  of  theatres,  of  that  too 
the  public  should  be  the  judges.  They  were  not 
likely  to  build  more  than  they  could  support, 
and  they  should  be  permitted  to  have  all  they 
needed.  So  also  no  restrictions  should  be  placed 
on  the  legitimate  drama :  it  was  absurd  to  sane- 


THE   DRAMATISTS  VS.  THE  MONOPOLY    329 

tion  what  is  frivolous,  and  forbid  what  is  great. 
Bulwer  would  have  the  stage  free  as  it  was  in 
the  days  of  "  Massinger,  and  Beaumont  and 
Fletcher,  Jonson  and  Shakespeare,  when  seven- 
teen theatres  were  constantly  open  to  a  metrop- 
olis a  tenth  part  of  the  size  of  London  at  present, 
and  a  population  a  hundred  degrees  less  wealthy 
and  intelligent." 

The  objections  raised  to  Bulwer's  motion  were 
various:  "The  object  of  the  motion  was  directly 
opposed  to  the  Lord  Chancellor's  opinion  (1831) ; 
it  would  also  interfere  with  the  crown  preroga- 
tive ;  a  multiplication  of  theatres  would  not 
produce  greater  performances  or  greater  authors, 
nor  would  morals  be  improved  thereby;  the 
question  was  too  large  for  the  Commons  to  cope 
with,  it  should  have  originated  in  the  Lords, 
where  the  crown  officers  had  seats  ;  the  degen- 
eracy of  dramatic  exhibitions  was  due  to  the 
illicit  rivalry  of  the  minors  ;  the  patent  theatres 
had  rights  to  be  defended ;  though  a  proper 
footing  for  the  minors  was  loudly  called  for, 
the  drama  should  never  be  taken  from  the  au- 
thority of  the  Crown." 

Sir  William  Brougham  agreed  with  the  main 
arguments  of  Bulwer,  relative  to  the  necessity 
of  amending  the  statutes  regulating  theatricals. 
As  the  law  then  stood,  he  said,  every  minor 
theatre  within   twenty  miles  of   the  metropolis 


330  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

violated  its  license  when  it  represented  any 
pieces  except  burlettas,  and  every  actor  in  such 
theatre  was  liable  to  a  penalty  of  fifty  pounds 
for  each  performance.  It  was  notorious  that  this 
law  was  violated  with  impunity  every  night.  This 
fact  was  a  sufficient  reason  for  legalizing  all 
those  theatres  required  by  public  necessity.  He 
(Brougham)  had  gone  carefully  into  the  law  on 
the  subject,  and  was  positive  that  every  minor 
theatre  performing  the  drama,  with  or  without 
the  Chamberlain's  license,  was  liable  to  an  infor- 
mation. A  question  had  arisen  over  the  definition 
of  a  burletta  ;  Brougham  was  certain  that  regu- 
lar tragedies  and  comedies  were  performed  at 
the  minor  theatres.  He  had  been  informed  that 
Othello  had  been  performed  as  a  burletta,  which, 
was  accomplished  by  having  a  low  piauo-forte 
accompaniment,  the  musician  striking  a  chord 
once  in  five  minutes — but  always  so  as  to  be 
totally  inaudible.  This  was  the  extent  of  the 
musical  element  distinguishing  Othello  from 
the  dialogue  of  the  regular  drama. 

Another  member  (Mr.  John  Campbell)  went 
farther  than  this,  saying  that  the  minors  had 
ceased  to  resort  even  to  the  subterfuge  just  men- 
tioned ;  and,  he  added,  "  where  the  laws  and  the 
habits  of  a  people  are  at  variance,  there  is  some- 
thing vicious  in  the  system."  Either  the  law 
should  be  made  to  conform  to  the  habits  of  a 


THE  DRAMATISTS  VS.  THE  MONOPOLY    331 

people,  or  the  habits  of  a  people  to  the  law,  for 
the  sake  of  a  rational  basis.  For  his  part,  the 
speaker  thought  that  free  trade  was  desirable  in 
the  matter  of  public  amusements,  and  that  the 
Government  should  never  interfere  except  to 
enforce  the  observance  of  decorum,  or  to  protect 
private  character  and  jjublic  morals.  As  to  the 
patent  houses,  Campbell  declared  that  they  were 
worse  than  the  minors,  and  were  a  reproach  to 
the  country.  Others  took  the  same  view.  They 
suggested  that  while  Parliament  was  in  the 
business  of  doing  away  with  monopolies,  "  they 
should  also  put  an  end  to  that  very  injurious  and 
most  indefensible  one  —  a  theatrical  monopoly." 
The  general  tendency  of  the  House  of  Com- 
mons was  decidedly  in  favor  of  the.  proposed  in- 
vestigation. The  motion  passed  and  a  committee 
was  appointed  with  Bulwer  as  its  chairman.  The 
work  of  the  Committee  was  laborious  and  search- 
ing. Its  sittings  extended  over  several  weeks,  and 
the  full  text  of  its  examination  filled  scores 
of  pages.  Authors,  actors,  prompters,  managers, 
were  called  before  it  for  the  purpose  of  giving 
evidence.  The  methods  and  practices  of  the 
patent  theatres  as  regards  performances,  plays, 
the  prices  of  admission,  the  relations  of  authors 
and  managers,  —  and  every  topic  relating  to  the 
theatrical  monopoly,  as  well  as  the  minors,  were 
all  examined  with  the  eye  of  scrutiny. 


332  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

All  parties  agreed  that  the  laws  governing 
the  theatres  ought  to  be  revised  and  placed 
on  an  intelligible  footing.  The  patentees  held 
up  the  inviolableness  of  their  property  rights 
against  all  infringements,  even  of  Chamber- 
lain and  King ;  and  Morton,  the  dramatist, 
instead  of  "  bearing  witness  "  before  the  com- 
mittee, advocated  the  cause  of  the  patent  houses 
outright.  Macready  thought  that  all  plays  hith- 
erto produced  should  be  given  to  the  large  the- 
atres, allowing  to  the  minors  only  those  to  be 
produced  thereafter.  Davidge  of  the  Coburg 
advocated  the  abrogation  of  all  law  respecting 
the  theatres,  and,  facetiously  comments  the 
"  Morning  Chronicle  "  (July  2, 1832),  he  "  seems 
to  act  on  this  opinion."  Mr.  Place,  of  Charing- 
Cross,  also  was  opposed  to  any  legal  regulation 
of  the  stage  ;  but  this  was  an  extreme  position, 
ill  calculated  to  aid  the  cause  of  the  minors. 
Kenney,  the  dramatist,  deposed  that  he  had 
been  tricked  out  of  his  3Iasaniello,  for  which  he 
had  never  received  a  penny  from  Drury  Lane, 
although  the  piece  had  been  played  there  for 
nearly  two  hundred  nights.  For  his  Irish  Am- 
bassador seventy  pounds  were  still  due  from  the 
manager  of  Covent  Garden.  The  monojDoly,  he 
was  sure,  was  the  cause  of  this  hardship. 

One  of  the  numerous  sensations  of  the  pro- 
ceedings of  the  Committee  was  produced  when 


THE   DRAMATISTS  VS.  THE  MONOPOLY    333 

Sir  Richard  Birnie  and  Mr.  Hall  were  examined 
(July  10,  1832).  The  latter  asserted  that,  not- 
withstanding the  fact  that  he  had  once  been 
overruled  in  judging  in  favor  of  a  minor  thea- 
tre in  the  case  of  an  information  brought  before 
him  for  hearing,  in  a  similar  case  he  would  decide 
again  as  he  had  done.  Birnie  and  Hall  were 
the  Bow  Street  magistrates  who  had  refused  to 
convict  the  Tottenham  Theatre  performers,  on 
the  crround  that  sufficient  evidence  had  not  been 
produced  by  the  informants  to  show  that  the 
minor  theatre  had  not  been  licensed. 

Bulwer,  of  course,  and  his  brother,  were  for 
no  restraints.  Duncombe  was  for  a  middle 
course ;  while  Sheil,  though  opposed  to  the  mo- 
nopoly, doubted  the  feasibility  of  legislative 
remedy.  Earl  Belfast  placed  himself  on  the  side 
of  the  Lord  Chamberlain's  authority.  Mr.  Al- 
derman Waithman  expressed  himself  for  the 
minors.  Rayner  thought  it  a  good  plan  to  de- 
mand of  the  monopolists  their  patents,  and  to  see 
if  those  documents  did  not  contain  a  clause  to  the 
effect  that  they  were  granted  "  for  the  advance- 
ment of  our  morals  —  the  refinement  of  taste  — • 
and  the  improvement  of  dramatic  literature," 
and  if  they  did  contain  such  an  express  purpose, 
then  the  managers  of  the  large  theatres  ought 
to  be  questioned  whether  the  production  of  The 
Dog  of  Montcirges,  Jack  the  Giant-Killer^  The 


334  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

Lions  of  Mysore,  "  and  five  hundred  other  pieces 
of  a  similar  description  "  had  fostered  the  high 
ideals  of  the  patent  grants.  If  the  answer  were 
in  the  negative,  then  the  patents  should  be  de- 
clared null  and  void.  At  any  rate,  they  ought  to 
be  restricted  by  law,  never  in  future  to  repre- 
sent melodrama,  burlesque,  or  pantomime.^ 

On  August  2,  1832,  the  Committee  had  com- 
pleted its  investigation,  and  were  ready  to  report 
to  the  House.  The  report  comprehended  eight 
main  divisions,  as  arranged  by  Bulwer.  The 
first  of  these  consisted  of  the  plain  statement  that 
the  Committee  had  found  "  a  considerable  de- 
cline, both  in  the  literature  of  the  stage,  and  the 
Taste  of  the  public  for  theatrical  performances." 
The  enumerated  causes  of  this  state  of  affairs 
were,  the  prevailing  fashion  of  late  dining,  the 
want  of  royal  encouragement,  and  the  supposed 
indisposition  of  some  religious  sects  towards  the- 
atres. These  all  lay  outside  of  legislative  control. 
But  there  were  additional  causes  which  Govern- 
ment might  consider,  such  as  the  uncertain 
administration  of  the  laws,  lack  of  proper  encour- 
agement to  dramatic  authorship,  and  the  want  of 
regulation  as  regards  the  number  and  distribu- 
tion of  theatres. 

The  second  section  of  the  report  struck  at  the 

1  For  comments  on  the  Select  Committee's  investigations, 
see  Morning  Chronicle,  July  2,  16,  23,  25,  1832. 


THE  DRAMATISTS  VS.  THE  MONOPOLY    335 

root  of  the  evil  respecting  the  licensing  of  the- 
atres, —  the  cause  of  most  of  the  grievances  of 
the  minor  theatres,  and  the  years  of  contention 
between  them  and  the  patentees.  It  was  recom- 
mended that  the  sole  power  of  licensing  theatres 
be  confined  to  the  Lord  Chamberlain ;  that  the 
jurisdiction  of  that  official  be  extended  to 
a  distance  of  twenty  miles  about  London  (that 
being  the  point  at  which,  by  the  Act  of  28  George 
III,  the  authority  of  the  magistrates  to  license 
theatres  for  the  regular  drama  began)  ;  and  that, 
for  the  sake  of  a  fair  competition,  the  Lord 
Chamberlain  should  continue  to  license  all  the 
theatres  then  holding  licenses  from  whichever 
source  —  magistrates  or  Lord  Chamberlain.  The 
difficulty  of  defining  the  "  legitimate  drama  "  was 
admitted,  and,  to  obviate  this,  the  very  liberal 
proposal  was  made  of  allowing  proprietors  and 
managers  of  theatres  to  exhibit  "  at  their  option 
the  legitimate  drama  and  all  such  plays  as  have 
received  or  shall  receive  the  sanction  of  the  cen- 
sor." This  second  clause  of  the  report  is  deserv- 
ing of  attention,  as  out  of  it,  a  decade  later, 
developed  the  law  ending  the  long  struggle. 

In  the  next  place  the  Committee  thought  that, 
since  theatres  are  for  the  amusement  of  the  pub- 
lic, the  public  should  have  a  voice  in  determining 
the  number.  It  was,  therefore,  strongly  recom- 
mended to  the  House,  that  whenever  a  requisi- 


336  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

tion,  signed  by  a  majority  of  the  inhabitants  of 
any  large  and  populous  parish  or  district,  pray- 
ing for  a  new  theati-e,  should  be  presented  to  the 
Lord  Chamberlain,  that  official  should  be  com- 
pelled to  comply  with  the  public  wish.  In  case 
of  any  outrageous  abuse  of  privilege,  it  was 
suggested  that  the  Chamberlain  have  recourse 
to  the  Home  Department  for  power  to  suppress 
the  license.  Should  a  manager  attempt  to  act 
without  a  license,  it  was  to  be  deemed  'prima 
facie  evidence  that  the  community  was  opposed 
to  the  theatre.  In  such  emergencies  the  Lord 
Chamberlain  was  to  have  the  silencing  power. 

As  to  the  question  of  licensing  plays,  it  was 
advised  that  the  office  of  the  censor  should  exist 
at  the  sole  discretion  of  the  Lord  Chamberlain. 
This  would  not  only  give  dignity  to,  but  would 
also  fix  responsibility  of ,  the  office  of  examiner 
of  plays.  The  old  system  of  fees,  whereby  no 
distinction  was  made  between  the  fee  for  licens- 
ing a  slight  song  and  a  complete  di'ama,  was 
recommended  to  be  abolished,  and  a  graduated 
scale  substituted.^ 

The  Committee  did   not  apprehend  that  the 

changes   proi^osed  by  them  would,  if    adopted, 

^  As  the  fee  system  stood  in  18o2,  for  a  comedy  altered  to 
a  burletta  there  would  be  charged  at  least  six  distinct  and 
equal  fees  by  the  examiner.  —  one  for  the  comedy,  and  one 
for  each  of  the  (required)  five  songs.  This  fee  system  was 
graduated  in  l.S^M. 


THE   DRAMATISTS  VS.  THE   MONOPOLY    337^ 

have  a  depressing  effect  on  the  patent  theatres  ; 
for,  admitting  that  enormous  investments  had 
been  made  in  those  establishments  on  the  faith 
of  the  continuance  of  the  monopoly,  it  did  not 
appear  that  the  exclusive  privileges  had  pre- 
served either  the  dignity  of  the  drama,  or  the 
financial  prosperity  of  the  patentees. 

Coming  to  the  question  of  the  ill  usage  of 
dramatists  as  a  result  of  the  monopoly,  a  plea 
was  entered  for  the  better  protection  of  dramatic 
authors,  by  legally  establishing  their  rights,  as  in 
the  case  of  authors  of  productions  other  than 
dramatic.  It  was  hoped  by  the  Committee  that 
the  adoption  of  this,  and  the  other  suggestions  of 
the  report,  in  some  legal  form,  would  extend 
a  benefit  to  actors,  who  would  then  have  a  wider 
field  for  their  abilities  ;  to  authors,  who  would 
have  not  only  a  greater  demand,  but  also  a 
greater  protection  for  the  products  of  their  gen- 
ius ;  and  lastly,  to  the  public,  who  would  become 
the  final  recipient  of  all  the  promised  benefits. 

It  was  conceded  that  the  report  of  the  Dra- 
matic Committee  could  not  affect  the  status  of  the 
drama  as  represented  at  either  of  the  great  or 
small  houses  ;  because  the  craze  for  melodramas 
and  burlettas  made  that  species  far  more  lucra- 
tive to  the  managers  than  the  legitimate  drama.  ^ 

*  See  Morning  Chronicle,  August  6, 1832 ;  Gentleman's  Maga- 
zine for  August,  lSo2. 


338  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

At  the  same  time,  this  very  fact  was  damaging 
to  the  monopoly,  as  it  stood  particularly  for  the 
regular  drama.  Whatever  Parliament  saw  fit  to 
do  with  the  report,  it  was  certainly  very  dis- 
tasteful to  the  patentees ;  for  their  weaknesses 
had  all  been  laid  bare  in  the  course  of  the  in- 
vestigation. 

Some  looked  upon  the  work  of  the  Committee 
as  little  short  of  an  audacious  imposition.  Tait's 
"  Edinburgh  Magazine "  (August,  1832)  thus 
cynically  remarks  on  the  subject : 

"  The  unhappy  Drama  (almost  ashamed  to 
know  herself),  a  miserable  pauper,  who  has  been 
passed  from  parish  to  parish,  pressed  during 
the  war,  and  turned  adrift  in  her  rags  in  time  of 
peace ;  pelted  with  mud  by  the  editors  of  the  fif- 
teen daily  and  thirteen  weekly  journals  of  Lon- 
don, —  now  sentenced  to  the  workhouse,  and  now 
to  the  penitentiary,  —  is  at  length  condemned 
to  the  2)eine  forte  et  dure  of  a  Parliamentary 
Committee !  Not  a  farce-writing  dunce,  not  a 
ninny,  not  a  candle-snuffer,  but  has  been  called 
to  speak  to  her  character,  and  prate  away  his 
own  !  .  .  .  Certain  senators,  having  premised 
that  there  are  no  dramatic  authors  extant,  insist 
on  bringing  in  a  bill  for  their  protection." 

But  the  authors  had  a  cause  to  support,  and 
no  amount  of  adverse  criticism  was  able  to 
dampen  their  zeal.     The  same  day  (August  2) 


THE   DRAMATISTS  VS.  THE   MONOPOLY    339 

on  whicli  Bulwer  read  the  report  of  the  Dra- 
matic Committee,  one  of  the  House  members 
(Mr.  Shiel)  presented  a  petition  from  James 
Sheridan  Knowles,  praying  for  protection  to 
dramatic  productions.  At  the  same  time  Bulwer 
gave  notice  that,  if  reelected  to  Parliament, 
he  would,  the  next  session,  move  leave  to  bring 
in  a  bill  for  regulating  the  claims  of  dramatic 
authors.^ 

Pursuant  to  this  announcement,  on  the  12th  of 
March,  1833,  permission  was  given  to  the  mem- 
ber from  St.  Ives  to  introduce  a  bill  "  for  licenc- 
ing theatres,  and  for  the  better  regulation  of 
dramatic  performances  in  the  cities  of  London 
and  Westminster,  and  within  twenty  miles 
thereof."  This  was  known  as  the  Dramatic  Per- 
formances Bill,  and  was  an  outgrowth  of  that 
clause  in  the  report  of  the  Committee  on  Dra- 
matic Literature,  in  which  it  was  advised  that 
the  sole  power  of  licensing  plays  be  lodged  in 
the  Lord  Chamberlain.  The  object  of  the  meas- 
ure was  threefold :  to  throw  open  the  regular 
drama  to  all  the  then  licensed  theatres,  to  defend 
the  inhabitants  of  any  district  from  the  annoy- 
ances of  mere  theatrical  speculations,  and  to 
centralize  in  the  Lord  Chamberlain  authority 
over  the  theatres. 

^  Mirror  of  Parliament,  2d  Session,  10th  Parliament,  vol. 
iv,  p.  3519. 


340  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

With  these  objects  in  view  the  bill  proposed 
to  enact,  in  the  first  instance,  that  any  person 
desirous  of  obtaining  a  license  for  the  exhibition 
of  dramatic  performances,  at  any  place  within  the 
limits  of  the  act,  must,  at  least  three  months 
before  the  annual  licensing  day  at  which  the 
application  for  license  was  intended  to  be  made, 
post  a  notice  to  that  effect  on  the  outer  door  of 
the  theatre  where  such  performances  were  pro- 
posed to  be  exhibited.  Copies  of  the  said  notice 
must  be  served  also  on  the  church- wardens  and 
overseers  of  the  parish,  and  insertions  of  the 
same  made  once  a  week  for  the  three  months  in 
two  daily  morning  papers.  Should  a  majority  of 
the  persons  interested  in  the  property  contiguous 
to  the  theatre  petition  the  Lord  Chamberlain  two 
months  in  advance  of  the  licensing  day,  against 
the  license  thus  applied  for,  the  said  license 
should  be  denied.  If  no  such  petition  were  pre- 
sented, then  the  Lord  Chamberlain  should  be 
under  the  necessity  of  issuing  the  license  prayed 
for.^  However,  provision  was  made  for  refusal  to 
grant  a  license,  could  the  act  in  any  way  be  con- 
strued to  conflict  with  the  common  law.  Persons 
applying  for  a  license  should  be  required  to 

^  Hansard's  Parliamentary  Debates,  3d  Series,  vol.  16,  561- 
567  ;  see  also  Mirror  of  Parliament,  1st  Session,  11th  Parlia- 
ment, pp.  711-713 ;  and  Gentlemari's  Magazine,  vol.  103,  pt.  1, 
p.  261. 


THE   DRAMATISTS  VS.  THE  MONOPOLY    341 

present  a  certificate,  signed  by  three  architects, 
or  surveyors,  vouching  for  the  stability  and 
safety  of  the  building  intended  for  theatrical 
purposes.*  It  was  proposed  to  give  the  Lord 
Chamberlain  summary  power  in  cases  where  un- 
licensed performances  were  exhibited,  or  where 
proprietors  of  theatres  in  any  way  exceeded  the 
privileges  of  their  licenses.  But  the  Chamberlain 
was  to  have  no  discretionary  powers  over  pro- 
prietors complying  with  the  provisions  of  the  act, 
nor,  in  case  a  memorial  had  not  been  presented 
within  the  time  specified,  against  the  granting  of 
the  license. 

In  presenting  the  bill  Bulwer  stated  that, 
although  the  Dramatic  Committee  had  thought 
the  office  of  examiner  of  plays  a  needless  one, 
they  had  retained  it  in  the  proposed  bill,  fear- 
ing that  any  attempt  to  abolish  that  office  might 
militate  against  the  bill  itself.  However,  pro- 
visions were  made  for  a  graduated  scale  of  fees. 
In  the  debate  which  followed  Mr.  Bulwer's 
speech,  the  necessity  for  some  such  measure  as 
that  proposed  was  very  evident ;  although  some 
doubts  were  expressed  as  to  the  advisability  of 
attempting  the  control  of  public  taste  by  legis- 

^  This  precaution  may  have  been  suggested  by  the  then  re- 
cent disaster  at  the  Brunswick  (i.  e-  Royalty)  Theatre,  which 
collapsed  (February  28,  1828),  three  days  after  opening,  kill- 
ing a  number  of  persons. 


342  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

lative  action.  As  in  1737,  the  summary  power 
proposed  to  be  vested  in  the  Lord  Chaml)erlain 
caused  some  apprehensions.  And,  too,  the  attack 
on  the  censorship  was  thought  too  radical.  On 
the  other  hand,  some  would  go  beyond  Bulwer 
in  the  movement  towards  reform ;  the  censor 
and  chamberlain,  it  was  declared,  "  had  tram- 
melled the  drama  until  it  became  as  it  now  was ; 
fees  were  demanded  here  and  fees  there.  .  .  . 
There  should  be  a  free  trade  in  the  drama  as 
well  as  anything  else."  One  member  (War- 
burton),  who  held  a  X500  renter's  share  in 
Covent  Garden  Theatre,  thought  that  the  mo- 
nopoly system  was  calculated  to  afford  irrational 
amusement  at  the  dearest  rate,  and  that  the 
object  of  the  bill  was  to  reverse  this  state  of  af- 
fairs. If,  continued  the  same  speaker,  the  exist- 
ing monopoly  claimed  the  right  to  be  protected 
in  its  vested  interests,  he  wished  to  tell  the  House 
that  there  remained  no  such  interests  to  be  pro- 
tected ;  for  those  supposed  to  exist  were  mort- 
gaged to  treble  their  value,  and,  of  course,  were 
worthless.  For  his  part,  he  was  willing  to  sacri- 
fice his  <£500  share  in  Covent  Garden  in  order  to 
enable  the  minor  theatres  to  perform  the  regular 
drama. 

Opposition  to  the  Dramatic  Performances  Bill 
was  not  wanting,  either  in  or  out  of  the  House 
of  Commons.    The  patentees  had  the  memorial, 


THE   DRAMATISTS  VS.  THE  MONOPOLY    343 

which  they  had  formerly  presented  to  the  Lord 
Chamberlain  against  the  extension  of  the  licenses 
of  the  Haymarket  and  Lyceum,  printed  and  cir- 
culated broadcast,  in  the  hope  that  it  might  ef- 
fect the  defeat  of  Bulwer's  bill.^  Alfred  Bunn, 
the  new  lessee  of  both  patent  theatres,  had  two 
or  three  interviews  with  Bulwer  for  the  purpose 
of  prevailing  on  the  latter  to  amend  the  bill  to 
the  advantage  of  the  established  houses,  but  the 
"  young  reformer  "  could  not  be  dissuaded  from 
his  course.^  The  patentee  then  addressed  the 
Crown,  and  also  prepared  a  memorial  to  the 
House  of  Lords,  in  the  hopes  of  obstructing  the 
passage  of  the  bill  there,  should  it  get  through 
the  lower  House. 

The  press  was  by  no  means  unanimously 
friendly  to  the  bill,  as  presented.  It  contained 
certain  defects  which  augured  its  defeat,  and 
these  were  early  pointed  out  by  the  "  Observer." 
For  example,  one  clause  in  the  proposed  measure, 
as  first  prepared,  made  it  imperative  on  the  Lord 
Chamberlain  to  grant  a  license  to  an  applicant 
if  »  dissenting  petition  were  not  filed  by  persons 
living  in  the  neighborhood;  while  another  por- 
tion of  the  bill  required  that  a  consenting  memo- 
rial should  be  lodged  with  the  Lord  Chamberlain 
from  persons  living  near  the  theatre.^   The  "  Ob- 

1  Morning  Chronicle,  Mar.  18, 1883.  2  Bunn,  The  Stage,  i,  111. 
8  Morning  Chronicle,  March  25,  1833. 


344  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

server,"  from  the  start,  predicted  the  failure  of 
the  bill,  on  other  grounds.    Dissensions  arose  in 
the  Committee  in  charge  of  the  measure,  one  or 
two  of  the  members  threatening  to  withdraw,  for 
the  reason  that  the  schedule  of  theatres  proposed 
by  the  bill  would  make  the  monopoly  stricter 
than  it  had  been.    It  was  the  impression  of  the 
advocates  of  the  minors  that  the  schedule  was 
intended  to  include  all  the  then  existing  London 
theatres,  whereas  it  provided  only  for  those  that 
had  been  licensed.    Such  an  arrangement  would 
debar  the  Strand,  City,  and  Garrick    theatres 
from  legal  piotection;  and  for  this  reason  the 
bill  was  violently  opposed  by  some  of  the  Com- 
mittee.    To  meet  the  objections  raised  to  the 
schedule  of  theatres  proposed  by  the  bill,  one 
of  the  metropolitan  members  offered  a  compro- 
mise, whereby  the  Lord  Chamberlain  should,  by 
the  aid  of  a  jury,  be  enabled  to  decide  whether  a 
theatre  was  or  was  not  desired  by  the  inhabit- 
ants of  any  particular  district.    But  this  cumber- 
some  and  expensive  method  was  immediately 
attacked  by  the  papers,  and  the  whole  matter 
was  left  as  originally  proposed. 

Relative  to  licensing  the  Victoria  (Coburg) 
and  the  other  theatres  outside  the  Chamberlain's 
jurisdiction,  the  leading  theatrical  paper  of  the 
day  ^  remarks  :  "  What  mere  folly  it  seems  not 

1  Morning  Chronicle,  July  1,  1833,  quotiug  Observer.     Miss 


THE  DRAMATISTS  VS.  THE  MONOPOLY    345 

to  give  the  Lord  Chamberlain  at  once  jurisdic- 
tion there,  by  which  care  could  be  taken  that 
unobjectionable  pieces  only  should  be  represented. 
Here  is  a  short  and  easy  remedy,  at  least  for 
part  of  the  existing  evils,  without  useless  and 
endless  discussion  about  a  Bill  which  never  will 
be  passed." 

The  bill,  which  had  passed  its  second  reading 
and  been  committed  on  the  30th  of  May,  was 
reported  on  the  8th  of  July.  On  the  19th  of 
July,  Alderman  Wood,  of  the  metropolis,  suc- 
ceeded in  getting  an  amendment  added,  exempt- 
ing the  city  of  London  from  the  act,  on  the 
ground  that  the  mayor  and  aldermen  had  previ- 
ously exercised  the  power  of  granting  and  refus- 
ing licenses  within  their  jurisdiction.^  On  the 
24th  of  July  Bulwer  moved  the  third  reading. 
One  of  the  members  (Mr.  Rotch)  of  the  House, 
in  objecting  to  the  bill,  used  such  severe  language 
against  the  profession  of  actors  as  to  create  a 
sensation,  and  brought  upon  himself  a  well-de- 
served opprobrium.  A  theatre,  he  declared, 
served  the  purpose  only  of  bringing  together  a 
set  of  unfortunate  outcasts  who  had  no  means 
of  existence,  and  it  was  beneath  the  dignity  of 

Kelly,  who  was  at  this  time  planning  to  open  the  Strand,  at 
once  petitioned  Parliament  for  protection. 

1  Mirror  of  Parliament,   Ist  Session,   11th  Parliament,  pp. 
2006,  2813,  3188,  3309,  3312,  34G3,  3490. 


346  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

Parliament  to  legislate  for  such  a  class.*  This 
fierce  invective  did  not  prevent  the  bill  from 
passing  the  House  of  Commons,  which  it  did  by 
a  vote  of  38  to  7.  The  following  day  (July  25) 
Bulwer  carried  the  bill  to  the  House  of  Lords. 

The  minors  were  elated  over  the  success  of 
their  measure  in  the  Commons,  and  prophesied 
certain  victory  in  the  upper  House.^  The  Mar- 
quis of  Clanricarde  undertook  to  conduct  the 
bill  through  the  House  of  Lords,  and  secured 
its  first  reading  on  the  day  of  its  receipt.  Notice 
was  given  for  the  second  reading  to  come  up  in 
one  week.  By  the  appointed  day  both  sides  had 
gathered  their  strength  for  the  fray.  Lord  Wyn- 
ford  presented  a  petition  signed  by  one  hundred 
and  sixty  persons,  "proprietors,  managers,  per- 
formers, musicians,"  and  others,  interested  in  the 
Victoria  Theatre.  The  petition  stated  that  over 
three  hundred  persons  were  employed  in  and 
about  that  theatre,  and  that  none  but  the  works 
of  the  best  dramatic  authors  were  performed 
there.  They  set  forth  their  precarious  situation, 
due  to  the  then  existing  law  laying  each  of  them 
liable  to  a  fine  of  fifty  pounds  for  every  night 
they  performed.  They,  therefore,  prayed  that 
the  bill  then  before  the  Lords  might  pass.    In 

^  Hansard's  Parliamentary  Debates,  3d  Series,  vol.  xix,  p. 
1220. 
2  Morning  Chronicle,  July  29,  1833. 


THE  DRAMATISTS  VS.  THE  MONOPOLY    347 

presenting  this  memorial,  Lord  Wynford  did 
not  deny  the  truthfulness  of  the  petitioners' 
complaint,  but  entertained  some  doubts  as  to 
whether  the  X50  penalty  could  be  enforced. 

A  petition,  similar  to  the  foregoing  one,  bear- 
ing the  signatures  of  thirteen  hundred  inhabit- 
ants  of  London  and  Westminster,  was  read  by 
the  Duke  of  Somerset.  Both  of  these  memorials 
were  tabled.  Other  petitions,  favoring  the  bill, 
were  presented  from  the  minors  of  the  metropo- 
lis, from  actors  and  authors  interested  therein, 
from  merchants,  traders,  and  others  of  London, 
and  from  the  inhabitants  of  St.  Mary,  Lambeth, 
and  the  other  sections  adjacent  to  the  metropo- 
lis,^ Covent  Garden  and  Drury  Lane,  of  course, 
petitioned  against  the  bill. 

Something  of  the  ardor  which  stirred  the 
public  in  general  to  promote  the  Dramatic  Per- 
formances Bill  may  be  appreciated  from  a  single 
instance.  On  August  1,  the  day  before  the  time 
set  for  the  second  reading  of  the  bill  in  the  House 
of  Lords,  a  public  mass  meeting  was  called  at  the 
Crown  and  Anchor  to  consider  the  propriety  of 
memorializing  Parliament  in  favor  of  the  measure. 
A  number  of  notable  persons  were  present  at  this 
conference,  representing  authors,  actors,  mem- 
bers of  Parliament,  and  the  public  in  general. 
Among     these    were     Messrs.     Serle,    Warde, 

1  Mirror  of  Parliament,  1st  Sess.  11th  Pari.,  pp.  1384,  3490. 


348  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

Wrench,  Abbott,  Egerton,  Elton,  Farrell,  Jerrold, 
Osbaldiston,  Davidge,  Keeley,  Mitchell,  Vining, 
Bulwer,  and  many  others.  The  Duke  of  Som- 
erset, who  was  in  the  chair,  opened  the  meeting 
with  a  brief  address.  Serle  made,  perhaps,  the 
leading  speech  of  the  occasion.  He  stated  that 
the  appeal  they  were  then  making  to  the 
public  was  in  behalf  of  three  thousand  persons 
whose  livelihood  was  concerned  in  the  issue 
between  the  two  large  theatres  and  the  minors. 
They  were  asking  for  no  exclusive  privileges, 
he  said,  but  merely  the  liberty  to  exercise  their 
art.  The  history  of  the  prosecutions  of  the 
minor  theatres  was  then  entered  upon.  It  was 
averred  that  if  the  large  theatres  had  not  per- 
secuted the  minors  with  such  vindictiveness,  but 
had  allowed  them  a  degree  of  liberty,  they 
would  have  been  content  with  a  less  measure  of 
justice  than  they  now  demanded.  Nothing  but 
the  utter  abolition  of  the  monopoly  would  now 
relieve  the  situation  and  satisfy  those  most  se- 
riously affected. 

The  oft-repeated  assertion,  that  a  multiplicity 
of  theatres  would  lead  to  a  deterioration  of  the 
drama,  was  denied,  and  doubts  were  expressed 
whether  it  could  possibly  be  in  a  worse  state.  It 
was  a  well-known  fact  that  Sheridan  Knowles's 
play.  The  Wife,  and  the  regular  English  company 
of  actors  had  been  driven  from  Covent  Garden  to 


THE   DRAMATISTS  VS.  THE  MONOPOLY    349 

make  room  for  foreigners ;  *  while  at  the  minors 
Shakesj^erean  and  other  great  plays  had  been 
acted  repeatedly  with  success.  At  the  Olympic 
Pavilion  Hamlet  had  drawn  large  audiences  over 
and  over  again.  Experience  of  other  countries 
had  proven  competition  to  be  the  cause  of  im- 
provement of  the  drama,  and  so  would  it  in 
England,  if  permitted.  Serle  then  alluded  to  the 
treatment  which  Knowles,  Dowton,  and  Kenney 
had  received  at  the  hands  of  the  patentees, 
when  seeking  an  opportunity  for  presenting  their 
productions. 

The  charge  was  denied  that  the  minors  were 
to  blame  for  the  embarrassments  which  had 
overtaken  the  patent  houses.  Drury  Lane  The- 
atre, as  everybody  knew,  had  been  built  during 
"  war  prices,"  and  values  had  declined  with  the 
return  of  normal  financial  conditions.-  Drury 
Lane  was  not  the  only  concern  that  had  suffered 
from  the  same  cause.  As  to  "  vested  rights,"  it 
was  maintained  that  a  monopoly,  existing  solely 
for  the  benefit  of  a  few,  which  kept  the  bread 

^  This  occurred  in  1832  under  the  management  of  Laporte. 

^  "  Scarcely  any  description  of  property  has  been  more  seri- 
ously affected  by  the  general  distress  than  the  Public  Theatres : 
even  in  the  Capital  they  have  been  severely  visited  ;  but  in  the 
Provincial  circuits  they  have  been,  almost  without  exception, 
entirely  shut  up,  or  their  rents  reduced  one-third  ;  some  to  half 
their  former  produce,  and  others  allowed  to  be  used  for  the 
payment  of  taxes  and  repairs."  GentlemarC s  Magazine,  March, 
1817,  p.  270. 


350  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

out  of  the  mouths  of  thousands,  and  prevented 
the  public  from  enjoying  rational  amusements, 
had  no  right  to  be  permitted.  Serle  closed  his 
speech  by  reiterating  that  the  drama  could  live 
and  prosper  only  when  free ;  that  the  exertions 
then  being  made  were  aimed  to  rescue  it  from  the 
thralldom  of  the  existing  monopoly ;  and  that 
if  the  House  of  Lords  should  think  fit  to  reject 
the  bill  then  before  them,  nevertheless  its  pro- 
moters would  in  no  wise  feel  that  their  cause  was 
weakened,  but,  on  the  contrary,  they  would  make 
more  extensively  known  the  justice  of  their  de- 
mands, and  "  they  would  knock  again  and  again 
at  the  doors  of  the  Parliament  till  justice  was 
admitted."  * 

The  sentiments  of  the  meeting  were  written 
down  in  the  form  of  a  petition,  which  was  at 
once  forwarded  to  the  House  of  Lords.  On  the 
following  day  (August  2),  as  announced,  the 
Marquis  of  Clanricarde,  the  original  mover  of 
the  bill  in  the  Lords,  opened  the  debate  for  the 
second  reading.  The  anomalous  condition  of  the 
laws  regulating  the  theatres  was,  he  said,  con- 
trary to  the  wishes  of  the  people,  injurious  to  the 
public  morals,  and  derogatory  to  the  profession 
of  acting.  The  anomaly  consisted  in  the  conflict 
of  the  law  on  the  subject  and  the  fact  as  backed 
by  public  opinion.    East  of  Temple  Bar,  across 

^  Morning  Chronicle,  August  2,  1833. 


THE   DRAMATISTS  VS.  THE  MONOPOLY    351 

in  Surrey  outside  of  Westminster,  theatres, 
"  some  of  them  very  good,  and  others  less  so," 
were  acting  without  the  license  of  the  Lord 
Chamberlain,  and  had  no  means  of  obtaining  one. 
The  development  of  this  inconsistent  state  of 
affairs  was  significant ;  so  long  as  the  minor 
theatres  had  devoted  themselves  to  a  low  and 
vulgar  order  of  amusements  —  "whilst  they  were 
no  better  than  haunts  of  vice  and  idleness  " — 
the  patent  theatres  raised  not  one  point  of  objec- 
tion ;  but  the  moment  the  minor  concerns  became 
respectable,  and  made  an  attempt  to  give  a  class 
of  performances  "  to  which  the  intelligent  might 
resort  with  advantage,"  the  great  patent  houses 
put  the  arm  of  law  into  motion  to  crush  them. 
That  the  public  had  been  aroused  against  this 
injustice  to  the  minor  theatres,  to  say  nothing  of 
the  violence  to  morality,  was  witnessed  by  the 
petitions,  favoring  the  bill,  presented  to  both 
houses  of  Parliament,  and  by  the  report  of  the 
Committee  on  Dramatic  Literature. 

A  free  competition  of  the  theatres,  with  pro- 
tective guards  against  licentiousness,  was  needed 
to  alleviate  the  situation ;  and  the  Dramatic 
Performances  Bill  was  believed  to  contain  the 
remedy  sought.  As  the  law  then  stood,  there 
was  no  power  to  restrain  managers  from  exhibit- 
ing performances  wholly  at  variance  with  de- 
cency and  morality ;  for  the  Chamberlain's  power 


352  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

in  such  matters  was  only  permissive,  not  prevent- 
ive. As  to  an  indefinite  number  o£  theatres 
being  fostered  by  the  bill,  should  it  pass,  the 
very  opposite  was  expected  from  it  by  its  friends, 
for  some  of  the  places  then  exhibiting  would,  it 
was  predicted,  be  sui)pressed  by  the  operations  of 
the  act.  Indeed,  as  to  the  matter  of  respectability, 
it  was  pointed  out,  the  two  patent  houses  them- 
selves were  national  disgraces,  often  guilty  of 
giving  exhibitions  both  "  indelicate  and  disgust- 
ing." Moreover,  it  had  been  a  complaint  for 
years  that  those  theatres  derived  considerable 
sums  every  year  from  certain  classes  of  persons 
who  went  there  confessedly  for  purposes  im- 
moral and  vicious. 

If  it  were  held  by  some  that  the  bill  ought 
not  to  pass  because  it  would  be  an  infringement 
on  the  monopoly,  the  Marquis  of  Clanricarde 
desired  to  tell  the  Lords  that  such  a  position 
was  both  "  absurd  in  principle  and  untenable  in 
law."  Did  the  Lords  not  know  that  there  were 
no  monopolies,  that  by  the  Act  of  21  James  I,  all 
monopolies  w^ere  expressly  prohibited,  and  that 
any  attempt  on  the  part  of  the  patentees  to  exer- 
cise a  monopoly  rendered  them  liable  to  the  penal- 
ties of  a  praemunire  ?  Furthermore,  was  it  not 
a  patent  fact  that  Drury  Lane  was  then,  and  had 
been  for  years,  running  on  the  authority  of  a  lim- 
ited license,  and  was  this  not  sufficient  evidence 


THE  DRAMATISTS  VS.  THE  MONOPOLY    353 

that  the  monopoly,  as  well  as  the  "vested 
property  rights,"  was  a  mere  fiction  ?  It  seemed 
absurd  to  the  Marquis  to  speak  of  infringing 
property  rights,  the  value  of  which  was  measur- 
able only  in  terms  of  debts  and  mortgages. 

The  Earl  of  Glengall,  who  was  directly  inter- 
ested in  the  patent  theatres,  represented  the 
cause  of  the  patentees  and  repeated  arguments 
with  which  we  have  been  made  acquainted  in  the 
course  of  these  pages.  But  the  most  unique  turn 
to  the  debate  on  the  bill  in  the  House  of  Lords 
was  given  by  the  Bishop  of  London,  who,  in  a 
spirited  manner,  pronounced  a  lengthy  anathema 
against  the  immorality  of  the  stage,  not  sparing 
the  patent  houses.  A  lamentable  picture  was 
drawn  by  the  bishop,  in  respect  of  the  Garrick 
Theatre,  where  "  the  value  of  property  had  de- 
teriorated, houses  could  not  be  let,  offences 
multiplied,  and  the  district  alarmed  by  riots  by 
night."  The  good  prelate  was  chagrined  that  a 
bill  should  be  introduced  to  increase  these  places 
of  evil.  By  some  sort  of  mathematical  jugglery 
he  calculated  the  possibility  of  two  hundred  and 
fifty  theatres  within  a  radius  of  two  miles  from 
the  General  Post  Office,  in  case  the  bill  passed  ; 
nor  could  the  spiritual  Lord  consent  to  the  sec- 
ond reading  of  a  bill  that  promised  to  multiply 
dens  of  iniquity  at  such  a  rate.^ 

^  In  1835  Farrell,  proprietor  of  the  Royal  Pavilion  Theatre 


354  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

On  the  merits  of  and  necessity  for  the  Dra- 
matic Performances  Bill,  the  House  of  Lords 
were  almost  equally  divided,  with  the  deciding 
majority  opposed  to  it.  On  the  motion  for  a 
second  reading,  the  bill  was  lost,  lacking  five 
votes  only.*  Notwithstanding  the  prediction  of 
certain  wiseacres  that  Bulwer's  bill  would  fail  to 
work  its  way  through  Parliament,  its  rejection 
by  the  House  of  Lords  was  a  great  surprise, 
even  to  the  enemies  of  the  measure.  So  confi- 
dent were  some  that  it  would  become  a  law  that 
a  canvass  had  been  made  to  ascertain  whether 
a  third  theatre  project  would  meet  with  any 
great  opposition,  and  several  thousand  pounds 
had  been  subscribed  for  such  a  purpose.  But  the 
defeat  of  the  bill  in  nowise  daunted  its  pro- 
moters. Though  the  session  of  Parliament  was 
almost  at  its  close,  many  were  anxious  to  renew 
the  effort  before  the  prorogation  should  take 
place.  A  number  of  plans  were  discussed,  only 
one  of  which  stood  any  chance  of  passing  without 

in  Whitechapel  Road,  was  called  before  the  magistrates  at  the 
instigation  of  the  Bishop  of  London,  who  complained  that  two 
pieces  founded  on  scriptural  subjects  had  been  enacted  at  the 
Pavilion  and  Garrick  theatres.  After  investigation  the  justice 
dismissed  the  case. 

1  For  the  best  account  of  the  debates  in  the  House  of 
Lords  on  the  Dramatic  Performances  Bill  I  have  followed  the 
Mirror  of  Parliament,  1st  Session,  11th  Parliament,  pp.  3384, 
3490-3494.  See  also  Gentleman's  Magazine,  vol.  103,  pt.  2, 
p.  167. 


THE   DRAMATISTS  VS.  THE  MONOPOLY    355 

strenuous  opposition.^  This  one  was  proposed 
b}'^  Mr.  Otley,  who  wished  to  introduce  a  short 
bill  empowering  magistrates  with  discretionary 
authority  in  mitigating  the  fifty  pound  penalty 
for  acting  in  an  unlicensed  theatre.  As  the  law 
stood,  magistrates  were  powerless  to  graduate 
the  fine  provided  by  the  Licensing  Act.  How- 
ever, on  the  whole,  the  extreme  severity  of  this 
provision  operated  favorably  to  the  actors  in 
the  minor  theatres,  for  in  1833,  and  long  before, 
therie  was  little  disposition  in  any  quarter  to 
carry  the  old  act  into  effect. 

The  minors  were  greatly  opposed  to  Otley's 
compromising  measure,  and  nothing  came  of  it. 
The  old  order  of  things  continued.  But  the 
monopoly  had  received  such  a  shock  from 
Knowles's  attempt  to  establish  a  third  theatre, 
from  the  extension  of  the  privileges  of  the  lead- 
ing minors,  and  from  the  vigorous  combined 
attacks  of  minors  and  authors,  that  it  was  never 
to  recover  from  it.  It  was  nearly  ten  years  be- 
fore the  dramatists  were  to  concert  again  in 
defense  of  their  rights,  but  in  that  period  the 
internal  decay  of  the  patent  houses,  and  the 
external  attacks  of  their  foes,  made  the  closing 
ceremony  of  pronouncing  the  doom  of  the  "  great 
theatres  "  a  mere  perfunctory  legislative  act. 

^  Morning  Chronicle,  August  5,  12,  1833. 


CHAPTER  XIII 

THE   LORD    chancellor's    OPINION  ;    AND  KNOWLES'S 
PETITION    FOR    A   THIRD   THEATRE 

TO  the  long  list  of  theatrical  conflagrations 
was  added  that  of  the  New  English  Opera 
House  on  Eebruary  10,  1830.^  Arnold  was  still 
the  proprietor  of  that  theatre,  and,  before  re- 
building, he  conceived  it  to  be  to  his  interests  to 
obtain  an  extension  of  privileges  to  his  license. 
It  will  be  remembered  that  the  license  issued  to 
him  in  1809  was  claimed  by  Arnold  to  be  for 
the  year,  and  that  it  was  afterwards  abridged  to 
four  months,  from  June  to  October.  Accord- 
ingly, in  September,  1830,  Arnold  petitioned 
the  King  for  a  renewal  of  the  original  license 
for  English  opera.  This  action  caused  a  tem- 
pest of  agitation  among  the  patentees,  who,  as 
was  their  wont  on  such  occasions,  immediately 
presented  counter-petitions  praying  for  protec- 
tion to  their  "  inviolable  patents  "  and  "  vested 
property  rights."  The  storm  which  these  pre- 
liminaries threatened  to  brew  was  directed  by 
the  Crown  towards  the  Lord  Chancellor's  Court ; 

1  For  the  season   of   1830  the  Lyceum  Company  went  to 
the  Adelphi,  in  the  Strand  ;  in  1832  to  the  Olympic. 


PETITION   FOR  A  THIRD   THEATRE    357 

for  it  seemed  certain  that  the  struggle  of  1810 
would  be  repeated. 

The  hearing  of  Arnold's  petition  and  the 
counter-claims  of  the  patentees  was  set  for 
the  11th  of  January,  1831,  at  seven  o'clock  in  the 
evening.  The  interest  taken  in  the  case  by  the 
public  may  be  inferred  from  the  opening  scene 
at  the  court-room,  as  reported  by  the  "  Morning 
Chronicle  "  (January  12,  1831)  : 

"  Upon  this  occasion  there  were  associated 
with  the  Lord  Chancellor  the  Chief  Justice  of 
the  Common  Pleas,  the  Vice-Chancellor,  and  Mr. 
Justice  James  Parke.  As  early  as  six  o'clock 
the  doors  were  beset  by  an  impatient  multitude 
eager  for  access.  ...  A  favourite  few  ob- 
tained admission  through  the  private  door. 
Within  a  quarter  of  seven  the  public  entrance 
was  thrown  open,  when  the  rush  fully  equalled 
any  scene  of  confusion  ever  witnessed  in  the  pit 
of  a  theatre,  ...  on  the  first  night  of  a  new 
tragedy." 

A  number  of  noted  theatrical  persons  were 
present,  and  the  general  interest  manifested  in 
the  case  promised  to  be  even  greater  than  that 
taken  in  the  famous  proceedings  of  1810  ;  for  by 
1831  the  feeling  against  the  monopoly  had  be- 
come part  and  parcel  of  the  reform  movement. 
Arnold  was  represented  by  the  Solicitor-General 
(Mr.   Home),   Sir  Edward  Sugden,  and  other 


358  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

counsel  of  note.  They  based  the  claims  of  their 
client  on  the  original  license  of  1809,  and  its 
recognition  by  Sheridan  and  the  Privy  Council ; 
and  especially  on  the  fact  that  the  recent  im- 
portation of  foreign  opera  in  competition  with 
native  talent  rendered  it  doubly  necessary  that 
the  season  of  the  English  Opera  House  be 
extended  to  coincide  with  that  of  the  winter 
theatres,  if  anything  like  a  fair  competition 
could  be  hoped  for  by  Mr.  Arnold.  It  was  de- 
nied that  the  present  application  contained  in  it 
any  intent  to  break  the  monopol}^  then  existing, 
at  least  "  no  further  than  it  had  already  been 
done." 

The  whole  question  of  crown  prerogative  was 
again  entered  into,  but,  as  the  arguments  were 
the  same  as  those  given  in  1810,  they  need  not 
be  reviewed  here.  One  point,  however,  empha- 
sized by  the  Solicitor-General  to  the  confusion 
of  the  patentees,  was  the  invaliditj'  of  both  the 
patents  from  the  moment  of  the  union  in  1682. 
The  argument  adduced  from  this  union  was 
that  the  two  patents  were  at  that  time  incorpo- 
rated, not  only  by  the  permission  and  suggestion 
of  the  Crown,  but  by  Charles  II,  the  grantor  of 
the  original  patents ;  and  that  this  very  fact  of 
incorporation  obliterated  the  separate  distinction 
of  the  patents, — a  point  in  law  not  to  be  con- 
troverted.   The    incorporation    ^;er    se    of    the 


PETITION  FOR  A  THIRD  THEATRE    359 

two  patents  worked  their  forfeiture  completely. 
The  subsequent  action  of  King  William  in  grant- 
ing Betterton  a  license  in  order  to  carry  out  the 
original  intention  (of  two  theatres)  supported 
this  view.  Moreover,  any  use  of  the  patents  not 
intended  by  the  original  grant  worked  their  for- 
feiture ;  and  in  this  light  it  was  unnecessary  to 
inquire  whether  succeeding  princes  could  violate 
the  patent  grants  of  Charles  II,  but  simply 
whether  any  one  could.  If  it  were  claimed  by 
the  patentees  that  there  had  been  a  revival  of 
the  merged  patents  (in  1792),  then  which  patent 
had  done  the  reviving,  and  which  one  was  oper- 
ative in  Betterton's  time  ?  * 

Of  all  the  numerous  instances  of  violating  the 
patents,  reviewed  by  Arnold's  counsel  in  1831, 
one  other  is  worthy  of  mention.  When  Rich 
was  ejected  from  Drury  Lane  Theatre  in  1709, 
Queen  Anne  signified  her  willingness  to  grant 
a  license  to  any  one  who  would  surrender  his 
claims  to  the  patents  granted  by  Charles  II. 
Collier,  a  shareholder  in  the  Drury  Lane  patent, 
complied  with  this  request,  submitted  to  Her 
Majesty,  and  received  a  license  to  open  Drury 
Lane  Theatre.    The  opponents  to  the  patentees 

^  It  is  a  curious  fact  that  during  the  union,  though  it  was 
Killigrew's  patent  that  became  dormant,  the  united  company 
was  known  as  the  Kings's  Company,  operating  under  Dave- 
nant's  patent  at  Drury  Lane.  Later,  Rich  opened  Covent 
Gardeu  with  the  same  patent. 


3G0  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

now  claimed  that  this  circumstance  was  founded 
on  the  surrender  of  the  patents  to  the  Crown, 
at  which  time  the  prerogative  over  theatrical 
affairs  was  resumed.  It  was  also  pointed  out 
that,  if  the  patents  gave  a  monopoly,  Italian 
opera  was  also  included.  In  granting  O'Reilly 
a  license  for  Italian  opera  at  the  Pantheon 
(1790),  Chancellor  Thurlow  decided  that  the 
King's  prerogative  in  such  matters  was  un- 
limited. • 

Such  an  array  of  precedents  against  the 
theory  that  the  theatrical  patents  were  inviola- 
ble had  never  before  been  marshaled.  Against 
these,  counsel  for  the  patentees  recited  all  the 
acts  of  Parliament,  from  the  "  Rogue,  Vaga- 
bond, and  Sturdy  Beggar  "  act  of  Queen  Eliza- 
beth, through  the  Licensing  Act  of  1737,  to  the 
"Arrangement  "  of  1792,  sanctioned  by  the  King 
and  others  high  in  authority.  As  to  the  lapsing 
of  patents  on  the  ground  of  non-user,  Mr.  Ar- 
nold's attention  was  called  to  the  fact  that  his 
own  Lyceum  license  was  invalid,  as  having  re- 
mained unused  from  1812  to  1815.^  Finally, 
the   patentees  did  not  rest  their  claims  on  the 

^  Arnold  made  answer  to  this  that,  as  he  was  director  of 
the  Drury  Lane  Company  for  those  three  years,  it  had  been 
hardly  the  proper  thing  for  him  to  establish  a  rival  theatre  on 
his  license.  The  allusion  is  to  the  period  when  Sheridan  joined 
his  burnt-out  Drury  Lane  Company  to  that  of  Arnold  at  the 
Lyceum,  pending  the  rebuilding  of  Drury  Lane  Theatre. 


PETITION  FOR  A  tHIRD  THEATRE    361 

patents  granted  by  Charles  II,  but  rather  on  the 
historic  recognition  of  the  rights  of  the  patent 
owners,  and  on  the  justice  inherent  in  the  invio- 
lability of  property  investments.  And  the  touch- 
ing on  this  phase  of  the  question  entailed  a 
recapitulation  of  the  financial  calamities  of  the 
two  patent  houses  for  the  previous  half-century. 
It  does  not  seem  to  have  occurred  to  the  pat- 
entees that  these  very  disasters  —  at  least  those 
due  to  mismjftiagement  —  would,  sooner  or  later, 
be  looked  at  with  a  different  effect  from  the  one 
aimed  at  on  the  present  occasion.  Alluding  to 
the  objections  made  against  monopolies,  counsel 
for  the  patentees  apprehended  that,  under  free 
competition,  the  most  tyrannous  of  monopolies 
would  result,  for,  ultimately,  one  theatre  must 
succeed  in  driving  all  others  from  the  field. 
Aaron  Hill  would  have  added,  "  or  raise  them 
to  a  higher  plane,"  which  was  the  aim  of  the 
opponents  to  the  monopoly. 

A  complication  at  this  juncture  arose  in  the 
proceedings  of  the  Lord  Chancellor's  Court.^ 
On  the  25th  of  January,  Morris,  proprietor  of 
the  Little  Theatre  in  the  Haymarket,  memorial- 
ized the  King  to  take  his  theatre  into  considera- 

^  The  importance  of  the  case  required  the  court  to  sit  a 
number  of  times  from  January  11  to  31.  For  the  proceed- 
ings see  Morning  Chronicle,  January  12,  14,  19,  25,  26,  Febru- 
ary 1,  1831. 


362  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

tion  when  deciding  on  Arnold's  petition,  which 
was  looked  upon  by  the  Haymarket  manager  as 
nothing  more  nor  less  than  an  attempt  to  estab- 
lish a  third  winter  theatre.  On  the  basis  of  jus- 
tice and  policy  Morris  thought  that  his  theatre 
should  have  precedence  over  the  English  Opera 
House  in  the  matter  of  a  third  establishment, 
inasmuch  as  the  Haymarket  had  been  a  truer 
representative  of  the  legitimate  drama.  The  con- 
version of  the  regular  drama  into  an  "  operatized 
form  "  at  the  English  Opera  House  was  charac- 
terized as  "  spurious,"  the  representation  of  which 
was  in  violation  of  the  spirit  of  Arnold's  license. 
Arnold's  rejoinder,  that  the  pieces  put  on  at 
the  Lyceum  were  sanctioned  by  the  Lord  Cham- 
berlain, was  unanswerable ;  and  as  to  non-user 
working  the  forfeiture  of  a  license,  that  was 
a  two-edged  sword  on  the  present  occasion.  So 
too  might  the  plea  of  financial  disaster  be  worked 
on  both  sides.  But  financial  success  or  failure 
was  denied  to  have  anything  to  do  with  the  con- 
troversy. The  essential  point  was  the  question 
of  public  benefit.  Referring  to  the  attitude  of 
the  Haymarket,  an  attitude  presumably  taken 
in  support  of  the  monopoly,  Arnold's  counsel 
(Sir  C.  Wetherell)  uttered  a  note  of  warning  to 
the  Little  Theatre  :  "  With  respect  to  the  com- 
mon cause  which  the  little  theatres  had  made 
with  the   great  Moguls,  who   fought  with   ele- 


PETITION  FOR  A  THIRD  THEATRE    363 

phants,  he  could  only  say  that  the  little  poten- 
tate of  the  Haymarket  and  others  would  soon  find 
that  if  Mr.  Arnold  were  defeated  they  would  be 
likewise  swallowed  up."  The  persecution  of  the 
Tottenham  and  Strand  proprietors  followed  on 
the  heels  of  this  prediction. 

After  due  deliberation,  the  Lord  Chancellor 
advised  the  King  that  the  crown  prerogative  can- 
not be  so  affected  by  previous  patent  grants  as 
to  preclude  the  granting  of  similar  patents;  but 
that,  under  the  circumstances  of  the  case  then 
under  consideration,  he  gave  it  as  his  opinion 
that  the  new  English  Opera  House  should  be 
limited  to  six  months  every  year,  commencing 
with  May  and  ending  with  October.  To  this 
decision  the  King  added  a  second,  calculated  to 
relieve  a  much  vexed  question,  relating  to  the 
licensing  of  minor  theatres.  It  was  laid  down 
that,  thereafter,  all  minor  theatres  should  re- 
ceive their  licenses  from  the  Lord  Chamberlain's 
office,  and  not  from  the  magistrates.'  This  was 
a  step  towards  reducing  the  confusion  connected 
with  the  promiscuous  licensing  of  theatres  ;  for 
hitherto  managers  had  generally  been  able  to 
find  some  magistrate  who  could,  and  would,  ex- 
ercise a  liberal  interpretation  of  a  variety  of 
laws  in  the  crantins:  of  licenses  for  theatrical 
amusements.  But  the  decision  was  far  from  satis- 
^  New  Monthly  Magazine,  April,  1831. 


364  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

factory  in  many  ways;  it  added  a  new  confu- 
sion to  tlie  Lord  Chamberlain's  power,  for  by 
the  Licensing  Act  that  officer's  jurisdiction 
extended  no  farther  than  the  liberties  of  West- 
minster. This  conflict  of  jurisdiction,  legalized 
by  statute,  had  been  the  source  of  most  of  the 
theatrical  rows  since  the  days  of  John  Palmer; 
and  though  the  attempt  to  localize  responsibil- 
ity respecting  the  theatres  was  a  worthy  one,  it 
was  not  calculated  to  remove  the  main  diffi- 
culty, —  the  disparity  of  protection  secured  to 
the  patent  theatres  and  the  minors.  From  an 
immediate  outlook  the  decision  in  the  case  of 
Arnold's  petition  was  unsatisfactory,  because  of 
the  halfway  course  adopted  in  granting  a  license 
for  six  months.  Neither  party  could  claim  a  vic- 
tory, yet  on  the  whole  the  effect  was  dishearten- 
ing to  the  minors. 

A  year  and  a  half  went  by,  and  the  new  Eng- 
lish Opera  House  was  not  yet  completed.  In  the 
summer  of  1832  both  the  Italian  Opera  House 
(King's  Theatre  in  the  Haymarket)  and  Covent 
Garden  ^  were  kept  open  with  a  French  company, 
in  competition  with  the  two  regular  summer 
theatres.  In  this  extremity  Morris  presented  a 
memorial  (July,  1832)  to  the  Lord  Chamberlain, 

^  Covent  Garden  Theatre  and  the  Italian  Opera  House  were 
at  this  time  under  the  sole  management  of  Laporte,  who  was 
making  the  wildest  efforts  to  keep  from  sinking  financially. 


PETITION  FOR  A  THIRD  THEATRE    365 

praying  for  an  extension  of  his  season.  The  Duke 
of  Devonshire  withheld  an  immediate  reply,  pend- 
ing the  investigation  of  the  Dramatic  Committee. 
However,  many  weeks  passed  after  the  report  of 
that  Committee  had  been  made,  and  Morris  had 
not  yet  been  answered.  Some  time  in  September 
(1832)  a  rumor  got  afloat  that  the  licenses  of 
both  Morris  and  Arnold  had  been  extended.  This 
was  too  uncertain  to  furnish  much  relief  to  the 
memorialist.  When  the  Haymarket  closed  its 
season  on  the  8th  of  October  it  was  evident,  from 
the  address  of  the  manager  to  the  public  on  that 
occasion,  that  Morris  had  received  no  official  an- 
swer to  his  petition.  Finally,  about  Christmas, 
it  was  given  out  on  good  authority  that  the  prayer 
of  the  Little  Theatre  had  been  granted,  and  that 
Morris  was  preparing  to  open  his  theatre  on  the 
ensuing  Easter  (1833)  for  an  eight  months  sea- 
son.^ The  Lyceum  was  also  included  in  this 
extension,  the  privileges  to  both  theatres  being 
granted  at  the  special  instance  of  King  William 
IV.  A  scruple  was  at  once  raised  whether  this 
was  not  a  breach  of  the  arrangement  made  in 
1822  with  the  winter  houses,  relative  to  the  time 
of  opening.  This  point  was  dismissed,  however, 
by  the  summer  managers  on  the  ground  that  no 

^  For  the  history  of  these  extensions  I  have  followed  the  re- 
ports given  by  the  Morning  Chronicle,  July  23,  Sept.  3,  Oct.  9, 
Dec.  24, 1832,  Jan.  28,  July  29,  1833. 


366    THE   STRUGGLE  FOR   A  FREE   STAGE 

such  agreement  subsisted  between  thevi  and  the 
patentees  (Polhill  of  Drury  Lane,  and  Laporte  of 
Covent  Garden).*  The  latter  at  once  entered  a 
protest  with  the  Lord  Chamberlain  against  the 
extension  of  the  summer  licenses,  but  to  no  pur- 
pose. For  the  first  season  (1833),  however, 
Arnold  relinquished  his  privilege  of  opening  at 
Easter,  because  he  was  unable  to  collect  an  ade- 
quate company  in  so  short  a  time. 

The  extension  of  the  licenses  of  the  Hay- 
market  and  Lyceum  caused  rejoicing  among 
playwrights  and  actors  alike,  and  a  correspond- 
ing dolor  among  "  certain  other  great  people 
pertaining  to  certain  great  patented  structures 
of  name  needless  to  tell."  ^  It  was  a  step  in  the 
abridgment  of  monopoly,  and  the  herald  of 
certain  victory  for  the  j^romoters  of  free  competi- 

^  The  frequent  changes  in  the  lesseeship  of  the  patent  the- 
atres during  this  period  in  some  sense  suggests  the  financial 
condition  of  the  tottering  concerns.  EUiston  had  Drury  Lane 
frona  1819  to  182G.  It  was  then  taken  hy  Stephen  Price,  an 
American,  who  succeeded  in  holding  it  for  four  years  before 
becoming  bankrupt.  Alexander  Lee  then  risked  his  chance, 
remaining  less  than  a  year,  and  was  succeeded  by  Captain  Pol- 
hill  in  1831.  Two  years  later  Alfred  Bunn  became  the  sole 
lessee  of  Drury  Lane  and  Covent  Garden,  staying  at  the 
former  until  1839.  Covent  Garden  furnishes  a  similar  story. 
Harris  was  succeeded  in  1821  by  C.  Kemble  ;  the  latter  by 
Laporte  in  1832,  then  Polhill  the  same  year,  Bunn  in  1833  ; 
Pitzball  for  one  day  in  1835,  then  Osbaldiston,  and  Macready 
before  1840. 

2  Tait's  Edinburgh  Magazine,  February,  1833. 


PETITION   FOR   A   THIRD   THEATRE     367 

tion  in  theatricals.  It  mattered  little  that  the  new 
privileges  produced  no  immediately  perceptible 
effect  in  the  success  of  the  two  old  summer 
houses  ;  the  essential  fact  remained,  that  suc- 
cessful inroads  had  been  made  into  the  sacred 
domains  of  the  patent  theatres.  The  other  minors 
at  once  sought  similar  favors  from  the  Crown, 
and  not  without  success.  In  1835  Braham,  the 
tenor  singer,  failing  to  make  satisfactory  terms 
with  the  Drury  Lane  patentee,  applied  for  and 
secured  a  license  for  a  theatre  of  his  own.  Pur- 
chasing a  site  in  King's  Street,  in  a  remarkably 
short  time  he  erected  a  new  theatre  which  he 
styled  the  St.  James.  In  March,  1887,  the  St. 
James,  along  with  the  Adelphi  and  Olympic, 
had,  by  royal  command,  their  licenses  extended 
two  months  beyond  the  usual  term.  They  were 
now  permitted  to  take  advantage  of  the  Easter- 
tide, one  of  the  best  in  the  year  for  the  theatrical 
business.  This  favor  to  the  three  minoi-s  was 
probably  brought  about  by  the  indefatigable 
exertions  of  Madame  Vestris,  of  the  Olympic. 
Taking  advantage  of  a  day  when  her  theatre 
was  closed,  she  posted  down  to  Brighton,  where 
His  Majesty  "  received  her  with  much  kindness 
and  condescension."  Within  a  few  days  from 
this  interview  the  extension  of  the  three  licenses 
was  granted.^  Their  season  was  now  practically 

1  Examiner,  March  5,  1837. 


368  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

coextensive  with  that  of  the  patent  houses,  and 
in  the  cases  of  the  Adelphi  and  Olympic  the 
performances  were  of  a  competitive  nature  to 
those  at  the  "  great  houses." 

A  mere  glance  at  some  of  the  other  minor 
theatres  will  serve  to  show  the  inroads  that  were 
constantly  being  made  into  the  theatrical  monop- 
oly.  Thursday,  October  19,  1837,  was  licensing 
day  in  Middlesex,  when  the  following  list  of 
"musical  licenses"  was  issued,  indicating  how 
easy  it  had  become  to  get  around  the  decision  of 
the  King  in  1831,  that,  thereafter,  all  dramatic 
licenses  should  be  issued  by  the  Lord  Chamber- 
lain. On  the  above  date  licenses  were  granted 
to  E.  Hughes,  R.  Dixon,  and  Charlotte  Jones, 
of  Sadler's  Wells ;  John  Perry,  of  the  Queen's 
(i.  e.,  Haymarket)  Opera ;  John  Farrell,  at  the 
head  of  the  Royal  Pavilion ;  R.  Gomersall  and 
W.  J.  Bennett,  owners  of  the  Garrick;  L.  B. 
Rayner,  manager  of  the  New  Strand  ;  Chris. 
Cookerton,  of  the  Norton  Folgate ;  and  John 
Braham,  proprietor  of  the  Colosseum.  Thomas 
Hamlet  was  refused  a  license  for  his  "  Queen's 
Bazaar  "  in  Oxford  Street.  John  Gibson's  appli- 
cation for  the  Royal  Standard  was  at  first 
denied,  on  the  ground  that  it  was  too  near  the 
Norton  Folgate ;  but  the  question  being  put,  the 
license  was  granted  by  a  vote  of  13  to  12.  "  The 
decision  was  received  with  loud  plaudits,  not- 


PETITION   FOR   A   THIRD   THEATRE    369 

withstanding  the  efforts  of  the  court  to  suppress 
them."  1 

The  licenses  of  the  Olympic,  Adelphi,  and 
St.  James  were  extended  under  the  chamber- 
lainship  of  Lord  Conyngham,  who  succeeded  to 
the  office  in  1836.  One  of  his  first  acts  had  been, 
as  we  have  seen,  to  license  the  Strand  Theatre, 
something  which  even  the  magistrates  had  re- 
fused to  do.  As  the  first  effective  opposition  to 
the  monopoly  in  the  early  part  of  the  century 
had  originated  in  the  Lord  Chamberlain's  office 
(Lord  Dartmouth),  so  the  finishing  strokes 
were  to  be  aided  by  the  King's  servant  (Lord 
Conyngham).  Whenever  the  Lord  Chamberlain's 
power  had  been  put  to  the  test,  in  times  past, 
it  had  always  been  with  the  result  that  the  pat- 
entees were  obedient  to  his  mandates.  In  this 
connection  an  interesting  question  arose  at  this 
time,  namely,  as  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Lord 
Chamberlain  over  the  theatres  on  the  opposite 
side  of  the  river,  Astley's,  Surrey,  and  Coburg. 
Opinions  were  variously  stated  on  both  sides  of 
the  question,  showing  the  great  confusion  which 
still  reigned  as  to  just  what  was  and  what  was 
not  law  respecting  the  theatres.^     While  as  a 

1  Examiner,  October  22,  18-37. 

"^  By  the  Act  of  25  George  II  (1751)  justices  of  the  peace 
■were  enabled  to  license  music,  dancing,  and  public  entertain- 
ments after  five  o'clock  p.  m.     From  the  penalties  of  this  act 


370  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

matter  of  fact  there  was  no  doubting  the  author- 
ity of  the  Lord  Chamberlain  in  all  matters  re- 
lating to  the  theatres,  "  it  is  not  for  him,"  said 
the  "  Morning  Chronicle  "  (July  30, 1832),  " '  to 
run  amuck '  against  the  Minors,  when  the  Majors 
remain  perfectly  passive,  and  allow  their  prop- 
erty, as  they  contend,  to  be  injured,  when  they 
have  the  complete  remedy  in  their  own  hands." 
As  if  the  natural  tendencies  of  the  times  —  the 
rise  of  the  minors,  altered  customs  and  taste  of 
the  people,  and  the  almost  universal  demand  for 
reform  —  were  not  sufficient  to  insure  the  speedy 
dissolution  of  the  old  theatrical  monopoly,  the 
conduct  of  the  patentees  alone,  in  their  manage- 
ment (or  mismanagement)  of  the  "  great  houses," 
was  hastening  the  downfall  of  the  patent  theatres. 
EUiston's  gilded  reign  over  Drury  Lane  left  him 
a  bankrupt  (1826).^  Stephen  Price  was  in  the 
Committee's  debt  to  the  amount  of  <£2000  when 
he  quitted  the  old  concern  in  1830.  Alexander 
Lee  drew  Captain  Polhill  and  his  fortune  into 
the  sinking  ship,  leaving  him  at  the  end  of  the 

the  patent  houses,  and  the  licenses  issued  by  either  the  Crovrn 
or  Lord  Chamberlain,  were  exempted.  This  law  had  come  to 
be  interpreted  in  keeping  with  the  public  demands.  See 
Chapter  VI. 

^  After  Elliston  was  forced  to  surrender  Drury  Lane,  he  re- 
turned to  the  Surrey,  where  he  waged  an  incessant  and  defiant 
warfare  on  the  patentees.  It  is  significant  that  the  latter  made 
no  effort  to  prosecute  Elliston  for  "infringing  patent  rights." 


PETITION  FOR  A  THIRD  THEATRE    371 

first  year  to  extricate  himself  from  the  ruin  as 
best  he  might. 

Covent  Garden  presents  no  brighter  picture. 
As  Drury  Lane  had  once  been  bid  for  by  a  lot- 
tery agent  (Bish,  1826),  so  Covent  Garden  now 
(1832)  was  "let"  to  an  enterprising  foreigner, 
Monsieur  Laporte.  To  make  matters  worse  the 
patent  houses  began  the  season  of  1832-33  in  open 
feud.  Laporte  commenced  the  campaign  with  a 
flourish  of  French  plays  and  Paganini  concerts, 
followed  by  the  ballet  of  Masaniello,  a  popular 
pantomime,  and  the  Israelites  in  Ugypt,  given  as 
an  oratorio  in  action,  "  assisted  by  the  custom- 
ary accessoires  of  a  theatre,"  the  first  attempt 
of  the  kind  in  England.  Drury  Lane  retaliated 
with  Kean  and  Macready  in  Othello,  a  complete 
corps  de  ballet  "  imported  from  France,"  a  Ger- 
man company,  and  Malibran.  This  competition 
was  too  fierce  to  last  long,  especially  when  the 
contestants  were  already  weary  from  their  strifes 
with  external  foes.  In  March  (1833)  Laporte 
succeeded  in  capturing  Kean  from  Polhill ;  the 
latter  threatened  an  injunction,  and  at  the  same 
time  was  compelled  to  close  Drury  Lane  Theatre, 
since  the  main  attraction,  the  erstwhile  savior 
of  the  establishment,  was  gone.^    But  Laporte 

1  Bunn  implifes  that  Kean  left  Drury  Lane  because  Cap- 
tain Polhill  denied  him  the  loan  of  £500.  The  Stage,  i,  103. 
Kean  died  in  May  (1833)  succeeding  these  events. 


372  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

gained  only  a  temporary  victory  by  the  coup. 
Death  had  already  marked  Kean  for  his  own, 
and  during  his  first  appearance  at  Covent  Gar- 
den he  was  compelled  to  leave  the  stage  before 
reaching  the  third  act  of  Othello.  Both  theatres 
were  thus  practically  stranded.* 

Indeed,  long  before  this  stage  had  been 
reached,  early  in  the  season,  after  the  fruits  of 
his  first  victory,  Laporte  sounded  a  note  of 
alarm  by  giving  out  that  he  intended  to  keep 
Covent  Garden  open  for  only  four  nights  in  the 
week.  He  was  led  to  this  decision  by  the  poor 
box  receipts,  which  often  fell  below  £100.-  This 
meant,  of  course,  that  the  actors  were  to  be  put 
on  half-pay,  and  take  chances  at  that.  Another 
source  of  anxiety  and  dissatisfaction  to  the 
performers  was  the  disposition  to  supplant  the 
English  actors  with  foreign  troupes.  The  intro- 
duction of  foreign  operas  and  ballets  aroused, 
also,  the  advocates  of  the  national  drama.  Serle 
had  had  one  of  his  tragedies  returned  to  him  by 
the  Drury  Lane  management  (December,  1832), 
not  because  the  piece  was  unworthy,  but  because 
Drury  Lane  was  unable  to  bring  it  out ;  while 
Knowles  and  others  received  even  worse  treat- 
ment  than   this.    In    self-defense,  the   authors 

^  This  rivalry  between  Covent  Garden  and  Drury  Lane  is 
related  by  Bunn,  i,  98-106. 

2  Morning  Chronicle,  October  22,  1832. 


PETITION   FOR  A   THIRD   THEATRE     373 

hatched  a  project,  in  case  the  patent  houses 
should  banish  the  English  drama  from  the  stage, 
to  establish  a  theatre  "  in  which  the  production 
of  English  authors  might  take  refuge."  Capital- 
ists were  found  who  actually  subscribed  a  large 
sum  for  the  erection  of  a  third  theatre  in  the 
vicinity  of  Drury  Lane  and  Covent  Garden. 
The  plan  included  the  engagement  of  a  half- 
dozen  English  authors  of  reputation  (such  as 
Knowles,  Kenney,  Pool,  Serle,  Morton,  etc.)  to 
contribute  regularly  to  the  undertaking.^  But 
the  necessity  for  carrying  these  views  into  exe- 
cution was  cut  suddenly  short  by  the  extension 
of  the  Haymarket  license,  as  related  in  the  first 
part  of  this  chapter. 

The  ruinous  rivalry  between  the  old  houses  now 
caused  a  new  report  to  be  circulated,  more  alarm- 
ing than  any  hitherto.  It  was  conceived  by  cer- 
tain managerial  geniuses  that  the  salvation  of  the 
patent  theatres  lay  in  their  union.  This  was 
a  return  to  the  principle  adopted  in  the  time  of 
Charles  II  (1682)  to  avoid  the  utter  extermina- 
tion of  both  houses.  Alfred  Bunn,  Captain  Pol- 
hill's  manager  of  Drury  Lane  Theatre,  a  position 
which  he  held  under  Elliston  also,  was  talked  of 
as  the  proposed  proprietor  of  the  two  theatres. 
Such  a  venture  was  at  once  violently  opposed. 
The  proposal  was  condemned  as  a  total  perver- 

^  Morning  Chronicle,  January  28,  1833,  quoting  Observer. 


374  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

sion  of  the  original  idea  of  two  rival  theatres, 
the  competition  between  which  was  intended  to 
raise  the  standard  of  dramatic  productions  and 
stage  performances.  Viewed  from  Bunn's  side, 
it  was  admitted  that  he  showed  wisdom  iu 
thinking  of  taking  both  houses  under  his  sole 
control ;  but  if,  as  it  was  reported,  he  contem- 
plated running  the  two  theatres  with  one  com- 
pany, his  judgment  in  that  was  certainly  short- 
sighted. "  Select  one  house,"  he  was  advised  by 
a  cynical  critic,  "  say  Covent  Garden,  because 
we  believe  in  the  larger,  jam  into  it  all  the  dig- 
nity, sentiment,  pathos,  pantomime,  comedy, 
farce,  and  interlude  to  be  got ;  stuff  it  like  a 
turkey  at  Christmas,  and  shut  up  Old  Drury. 
As  it  is,  neither  house  is  ever  full."  ^ 

The  talked-of  union  of  the  patent  houses  re- 
vived the  project  for  a  third  theatre.  A  move- 
ment was  set  on  foot  to  secure  and  remodel  the 
Pantheon  in  Oxford  Street  and,  if  possible,  to 
obtain  a  license  for  the  regular  drama.  This  idea, 
however,  was  given  up,  and  the  plan  of  erecting 
an  entirely  new  theatre  was  again  much  talked 
of,  though  the  recent  experience  of  the  "  great 
houses  "  caused  some  to  doubt  the  feasibility  of 
a  third  theatre  speculation,  —  even  if  they  were 
successful  in  securing  a  license.^ 

^  New  Monthly  Magazine^  for  1833,  pt.  iii,  p.  350. 
2  Observer,  April  21,   1833,  quoted  in  Morning   Chronicle, 
April  22,  1833. 


PETITION  FOR  A  THIRD   THEATRE    375 

The  strained  relations  existing  between  au- 
thors and  actors,  on  the  one  hand,  and  the 
patentees,  on  the  other,  were  aggravated  and 
brought  to  a  hasty  climax  by  the  crooked  con- 
duct of  Laporte.  On  the  16th  of  April  (1833) 
he  suddenly  closed  Covent  Garden  Theatre, 
without  consent  of,  or  formal  notice  to,  his  per- 
formers. It  was  announced  that  the  theatre  would 
be  closed  for  a  fortnight ;  but  the  actors  were 
suspicious  and  became  at  once  alert.  Of  course 
their  salaries  ceased  the  moment  the  theatre 
closed.  Fearing  lest  they  might  be  thrown  en- 
tirely out  of  employment,  they  put  Laporte' s 
intentions  to  the  test  by  applying  to  the  Lord 
Chamberlain  for  permission  to  perform  at  the 
Olympic  during  the  two  weeks  interval  of  the 
closing  of  Covent  Garden.  This  request  was 
granted.  But  although  Laporte  had  offered  to 
release  all  his  performers  from  their  articles  at 
the  time  he  sliut  his  theatre,  he  no  sooner  heard 
of  the  contemplated  opening  of  the  Olympic  by 
his  unemployed  actors  than  he  immediately  re- 
solved to  recommence  operations  at  Covent  Gar- 
den.*   This  intention  he  carried  out  on  the  24th, 

^  The  cause  of  closing  Covent  Garden  was  well  known  to 
be  the  low  financial  state  of  the  concern.  The  Opera  House, 
Drury  Lane,  and  the  Strand  closed  the  same  night  (April  16), 
but  in  some  of  the  cases  this  was  due  to  an  epidemic  of  influ- 
enza among  the  actors.   Morning  Chronicle,  April  22,  1833. 


376  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

a  week  sooner  than  expected,  when  Knowles's 
new  play,  Tlie  Wife,  a  Tide  of  Mantua,  was 
produced.  The  success  o£  this  piece  promised  to 
save  Covent  Garden  from  ruin ;  but  as  the  bur- 
den of  the  performance  fell  on  a  single  actress, 
Ellen  Tree,  it  had  to  be  given  up  within  a  week. 
On  April  30  Laporte  abandoned  the  theatre, 
leaving  his  actors  to  finish  out  the  week  (four 
nights)  without  a  manager.* 

Left  once  more  without  protection  or  employ- 
ment, the  actors  determined  to  pursue  their 
original  design  of  going  over  to  the  Olympic, 
and  trying  their  fortune  with  Knowles's  new 
play.  They,  therefore,  petitioned  the  Lord 
Chamberlain  for  permission  to  act  at  the  Olym- 
pic for  the  remainder  of  the  season,  —  between 
sixty  and  seventy  nights.  They  had  hoped  to 
begin  at  their  new  quarters  on  Monday,  May  6, 
but  the  Lord  Chamberlain  was  tardy  in  giving 
his  consent.  Laporte  now  began  to  temporize. 
Although  he  had  released  all  his  actors,  he  pro- 
posed, at  this  juncture,  to  his  forsaken  per- 
formers "  half  the  emoluments  to  which  they 
would  be  entitled  if  the  dramatic  speculation 
had  been  profitable."  But  the  actors  declined  to 
share  further  in  the  losses  of  one  who  cared  so 
little  for  their  welfare,  preferring  rather  to  throw 

1  See  Morning  Chronicle,  April  25,  29,  May  1,  3, 4,  6,  8,  1833, 
for  an  account  of  these  strange  proceedings. 


PETITION  FOR  A  THIRD  THEATRE    377 

themselves  on  the  mercy  of  the  Lord  Chamber- 
lain. The  finesse  of  Laporte  in  offering  the 
actors  half -pay  decided  the  Duke  of  Devonshire 
to  grant  the  privilege  of  playing  at  the  Olympic 
only  on  the  condition  that  the  Covent  Garden 
manager  had  no  objection  to  such  a  course.  As 
might  be  expected,  this  requirement  could  not 
be  satisfied,  and  although  some  of  the  performers 
had  vowed  they  would  not  return  to  Covent 
Garden,  stern  necessity  drove  them  back.  The 
farce  was  enacted  for  a  few  nights  more,  of  car- 
rying on  a  losing  venture  to  prevent  a  circum- 
stance more  dreaded  by  the  patentee. 

On  the  night  of  the  3d  of  May  (1833),  after 
the  representation  of  The  Wife,  which  was  "  ex- 
cellently performed  to  a  very  crowded  house," 
and  most  enthusiastically  received,  the  audience 
was  dumbfounded  and  chagrined  at  the  opening 
sentence  of  the  following  address,  delivered  by 
Abbott : 

"  Ladies  and  Gentlemen,  —  To-morrow  the 
play  of  A  Wife,  A  Tale  of  Mantua,  will  be 
acted  for  the  last  time  here  [cries  of  O !  No, 
no!].  The  Performers  of  this  Theatre  having 
fortunately  obtained  a  License  from  the  Lord 
Chamberlain  [great  applause],  propose  opening 
with  this  popular  play  [cries  of  order,  and  ap- 
plause], and  upon  their  own  responsibility  [tre- 
mendous  applause],   at   the    Olympic   Theatre 


378  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

[applause].  They  respectfully  yet  confidently 
hope,  that  by  your  generous  support,  you  will 
rescue  the  legitimate  Drama  [loud  applause]  of 
this  country  from  total  destruction.  [Loud  and 
lasting  applause  followed  the  annunciation.]  "  ^ 
The  following  night,  Knowles  himself  came  for- 
ward amidst  thunders  of  applause,  and  announced 
the  intention  of  the  company  to  open  the  Olym- 
pic on  the  ensuing  Wednesday  (May  8). 

But  Laporte  persisted  in  offering  half-pay  to 
the  actors,  thus  standing  as  an  effectual  obstacle 
to  the  granting  of  the  license.  Finally,  however, 
a  license  was  promised  for  the  remainder  of  the 
season,  provided  the  whole  company  (about  300) 
were  unanimous  in  the  desire  to  enter  into  the 
undertaking.  This  condition  was  immediately 
complied  with,  and  by  the  morning  of  the  day 
announced  for  the  opening,  every  box  and  avail- 
able seat  in  the  Olympic  had  been  taken  for  the 
first  performance.^  As  a  counter-movement,  La- 
porte announced  his  intention  of  opening  the 
Covent  Garden  Theatre  with  a  foreign  troupe 
in  opposition  to  the  company  at  the  Olympic. 

'  Morning  Chronicle,  May  4,  1833. 

^  In  passing,  it  ought  to  be  mentioned  that  it  was  due  to 
the  liberality  of  that  remarkable  woman,  Madame  Vestris,  in 
offering  the  Olympic  to  the  Covent  Garden  Company,  that  the 
performers  were  relieved  for  the  remainder  of  the  season. 
Yates  also  tendered  the  use  of  the  scenery,  wardrobe,  etc.,  of 
the  Adelphi. 


PETITION   FOR  A  THIRD   THEATRE    379 

This  served  to  bring  down  the  severest  criticism 
from  the  public,  who  objected  to  the  use  of  a 
house,  dedicated  to  the  service  of  the  national 
drama,  for  the  exhibition  of  foreign  operas.  But 
public  opinion  could  do  no  more  than  express 
itself  on  the  subject,  it  could  not  prevent  the  use 
of  the  patents  for  such  purposes.  "  It  is  true," 
lamented  the  "  Morning  Chronicle "  (May  10, 
1833),  "  that  as  matters  now  stand  it  is  not  in 
the  power  of  the  highest  authority  in  the  drama 
to  prevent  the  practice ;  but  it  is  in  the  power 
of  the  public  not  to  patronize  it ;  and  sure  we 
are  that  this  state  of  things  cannot  long  con- 
tinue." 

Respecting  the  union  of  the  patents,  all 
doubts  were  removed  on  that  score  when,  on  the 
27th  of  May  (1833),  Alfred  Bunn  published  an 
address,  officially  announcing  himself  as  sole 
lessee  of  the  patent  houses.^  The  fact  alone  was 
sufficient  to  arouse  the  antagonism  of  all  ene- 
mies to  monopoly,  and  this  feeling  was  intensi- 
fied, on  the  part  of  the  actors  at  least,  by  the 
policy  of  retrenchment  adopted  by  Bunn.  How- 
ever justified  by  business  principles,  no  schedule 
of  maximum  salaries  would  be  submitted  to 
quietly  by  performers  who  had  been  used  to  de- 
manding, and  getting,  their  own  terms.  The 
Covent  Garden  Company,  led  by  Knowles,  re- 

1  Bunn,  The  Stage,  i,  107. 


380  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

fused  to  sanction  with  their  assistance  the  monop- 
oly as  thus  sealed.  Some  of  them  joined  with 
Abbott  and  Egerton  in  a  project  to  secure  the 
Coburg  during  the  summer,  and  to  appeal  for 
a  license  for  a  third  winter  theatre.^  The  most 
alluring  bait  was  held  out  by  Bunn  to  Knowles, 
but  the  latter  indignantly  refused  to  consider 
any  overtures,  preferring  "  to  stand  by  his  co- 
mates  in  exile."  ^ 

Bulwer's  Dramatic  Performances  Bill  was  at 
this  time  making  its  way  through  the  House  of 
Commons,  and  many  looked  to  it  to  relieve  the 
distressed  condition  of  authors  and  actors, 
brought  about  by  the  monopoly.  In  the  mean 
time  preparations  went  on  to  open  the  Coburg 
with  the  national  drama,  and  Knowles  himself 
headed  a  petition  for  the  erection  of  a  third 
theatre.^  Never  in  the  history  of  the  patents 
had  so  many  things  been  doing  to  work  the 
utter  ruin  of  the  monopoly.  The  most  pains- 
taking and  determined  attitude  was  taken  by 
the  promoters  of  the  petition.  Knowles  sought 
the  cooperation  of  Macready,^  but  the  actor  had 
thus  early  learned  prudence,  and   merely   took 

1  Morning  Chronicle,  June  3,  1833. 

2  Bunn,  The  Stage,  i,  115,  footnote. 

3  The  announcement  of  this  appeared  first  in  the  Observer, 
June  9, 1833. 

*  Macready's  Diaries  under  date  June  12,  1833. 


PETITION   FOR  A  THIRD   THEATRE    381 

the  matter  under  consideration.  That  the  peti- 
tion might  certainly  reach  the  King  himself  and 
receive  a  speedy  answer,  it  was  proposed  to 
present  it  to  him  in  person,  on  one  of  his  levee 
days.  Other  details  included  the  securing  of  a 
theatre,  ready  to  be  occupied  as  soon  as  the 
petition  should  be  granted.  So  determined  were 
some  of  the  opponents  to  the  monopoly  that 
they  did  not  scruple  to  advise  that,  if  the  peti- 
tion were  rejected,  a  third  theatre  should  be 
started  anyhow,  legally  or  illegally.  However,  a 
more  sober  counsel  prevailed,  and  the  petitioners 
bided  their  time. 

With  all  their  hopes  and  careful  preparations 
Knowles  and  his  followers  did  not  receive  an 
answer  from  the  King  as  soon  as  they  had  antici- 
pated. Bunn  memorialized  the  Crown  against 
the  petition  for  a  third  theatre,  and  felt  his  own 
importance  sufficiently  to  think  that  he  influ- 
enced the  final  decision.*  It  is  probable,  however, 
that  the  King  reserved  his  answer  to  Kuowles's 
petition,  pending  the  fate  of  Bulwer's  bill.  The 
latter  was  defeated  in  the  House  of  Lords  on  the 
2d  of  August.  On  the  16th  of  the  same  month 
the  petition  for  a  third  theatre  was  denied  by 
the  Crown,2   One  of  the  curious  circumstances 

^  For  this  example  of  self-sufficiency,  see  The  Stage,  i,  122. 
For  Bunn's  petition,  see  ibid.  115-122. 

^  Morning  Chronicle,  June  10,  August  19,  1833. 


382  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

associated  with  the  affair  is  that  the  signers 
of  the  petition  received  no  official  notification  of 
the  King' s  refusal  to  grant  the  request.  All 
that  could  be  gleaned  in  the  matter  came  through 
persons  connected  with  the  patent  houses.^  The 
petitioners  themselves  entertained  strong  doubts 
of  the  trustworthiness  of  the  rumored  rejection 
of  their  petition,  for  as  late  as  the  last  of  Aug- 
ust we  find  Knowles  writing  from  the  provinces 
(where  he  was  playing  in  the  "  circuit ")  to  Lon- 
don, "  in  some  anxiety  "  to  ascertain  the  facts  in 
the  case.  Finally,  three  weeks  after  the  first 
report  of  the  King's  denial  to  grant  his  sanction 
to  the  petition,  the  committee  appointed  to  repre- 
sent the  petitioners  received  official  notice  from 
Mr.  T.  B.  Mash,  of  the  Lord  Chamberlain's 
office,  "  that  under  existing  circumstances,  it 
is  impossible  that  His  Majesty  can  comply  with 
the  prayer  of  the  petition."  ^ 

As  usual  in  such  events,  explanations  were 
numerous,  and  gratis,  why  the  petition  failed  to 
receive  the  King' s  approval.  Some  thought  that 
it  had  been  injudiciously  drawn  up,  containing,  it 
was  alleged,  too  much  argument.  It  was  asserted 
by   others   that  Knowles   failed  to  secure   the 

^  This  arose,  no  doubt,  from  a  letter  -written  to  Bunn  by  the 
Vice-Chamberlain,  August  15,  1833.  See  Bunn,  The  Stage,  i, 
122. 

2  Morning  Chronicle,  September  2,  9,  1833,  quoting  Observer. 


PETITION  FOR  A  THIRD   THEATRE    383 

crown  sanction  to  his  third  theatre  project,  be- 
cause, forsooth,  he  had  refused  £500  from  Bunn 
for  a  play,  by  which  refusal  he  had  virtually 
shown  his  insincerity  as  to  his  protestations  re- 
garding the  "  national  drama."  ^  As  to  Knowles's 
motive  in  refusing  to  be  lured  by  so  tempting  an 
inducement  as  that  just  alluded  to,  it  ought  to 
be  said  in  his  justification,  and  to  his  credit,  that 
he  spurned  the  offer  for  two  reasons.  In  the 
first  place,  he  would  hear  of  no  compromise  that 
did  not  inclune  the  Covent  Garden  actors,  — 
and  under  Bunn's  management  there  was  little 
hope  of  this.  And  in  the  next  place,  Knowles  was 
irreconcilably  opposed  to  the  union  of  the  patent 
houses.  On  this  point  there  is  no  misunderstand- 
ing the  tone  of  the  following  laconic  note  from 
Knowles  to  Bunn,  dated  September  23,  1833 : 

"  As  I  consider  the  present  monopoly  to  be  an 
insult  to  the  public,  an  injury  to  the  actor  and 
the  author,  and  an  unwarranted  departure  from 
the  purpose  for  which  the  Patents  of  Theatres 
Royal,  Drury  Lane,  and  Covent  Garden  were 
granted  —  namely,  the  maintaining  of  two  dis- 
tinct and  rival  companies  of  comedians,  I  think 

1  Tait's  Edinburgh  Magazine  for  December,  1833,  in  an 
article  entitled,  "The  Stage  and  the  Drama."  Quoted  in  the 
Morning  Chronicle  for  November  29,  1833.  It  is  true  that 
Bunn  offered  Knowles  £500  for  a  full  play,  when  the  regular 
price  was  only  £300.  See  The  Stage,  vol.  i,  pp.  115-119,  foot- 
note. 


384  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

it  due  to  my  own  respectability  to  state,  in  reply 
to  your  letter,  that  no  consideration  whatever 
can  induce  me  to  connect  myself  with  either  of 
these  establishments."  ^ 

It  is  far  more  probable  that  the  petition  of 
Knowles  for  a  third  theatre  was  rejected  on 
quite  other  grounds  than  those  alleged.  The 
fact  that  the  answer  to  the  prayer  was  postponed 
until  after  the  fate  of  Bulwer's  Dramatic  Bill 
was  known  is  significant.  Had  that  bill  passed, 
Knowles's  petition  had  been  needless.  Its  failure 
seemed  to  indicate  the  temper  of  Parliament 
relative  to  the  theatrical  situation.  Likewise, 
the  opinion  of  the  Lord  Chancellor  in  1831,  in 
the  hearing  of  Arnold's  case  for  an  extension 
of  privileges  at  the  English  Opera  House, ^au- 
gured the  defeat  of  the  application  for  a  third 
theatre.  Again,  the  union  of  the  patent  houses 
under  Bunn's  management  was  looked  on  by 
many  as  a  legitimate  experiment  made  with  the 
object  of  saving  the  patent  houses  from  ruin, 
rather  than  an  attempt  to  establish  a  tyran- 
nical monopoly.  The  j^roject  of  a  third  theatre 
party,  if  successful,  might  frustrate  this  hope. 
Moreover,  the  complaints  of  Knowles  and  his 
followers  represented  the  temporary  grievances 
of  a  select  few,  rather  than  the  general  cause  of 
a  free  stage.  At  any  rate,  such  seems  to  have 
^  Bunn,  The  Stage,  i,  117,  footnote. 


PETITION  FOR  A  THIRD  THEATRE    385 

been  the  interpretation  placed  on  the  petition 
by  the  Lord  Chamberlain,  as  shown  by  his  letter 
to  the  patentee,  acknowledging  the  latter's  me- 
morial against  a  third  theatre. 

"I  am  desired  by  the  Lord  Chamberlain," 
writes  the  Deputy-Chamberlain  to  Bunn,  "  to 
express  a  hope  you  will  employ  as  many  of  the 
Covent  Garden  performers  as  are  deserving,  and 
not  confine  your  selection  to  the  Drury  Lane 
Company."*  And,  finally,  the  Duke  of  Devon- 
shire was  lukewarm,  if  not  openly  hostile, 
towards  all  attempts  to  invade  the  patent  rights 
of  the  "  great  theatres."  Enough  of  this  attitude 
has  appeared  in  the  prosecutions  of  the  minors 
to  make  it  unnecessary  to  dilate  further  on  the 
point  here. 

The  "  Observer,"  ^  with  its  usual  cynical  acute- 
ness,  consoled  the  defeated  petitioners  in  the 
following  strain,  apropos  of  Bulwer's  rejected 
bill :  "  We  believe  that  the  advocates  for  a 
third  theatre  now  see  the  uselessness  of  proceed- 
ing farther  in  their  enterprise  at  present,  and 
are  content  to  wait  the  issue  of  the  experiment 
about  to  be  tried  at  the  two  Winter  Theatres. 
The  opinion  is,  that  it  must  fail,  and  that  the 
public  cannot  again  be  brought  to  take  an  inter- 
est in  theatricals,  without  some  fresh  and  power- 

1  Bunn,  The  Stage,  i,  122. 

2  Morning  Chronicle,  August  26,  1833. 


386  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

f  ul  excitement.  IIow  is  that  to  be  procured  ? 
New  plays  we  hear  of  none  that  have  any  chance 
of  producing  the  slightest  sensation ;  and  we 
know  more  than  one  author,  formerly  in  the 
habit  of  writing  original  pieces,  who  positively 
refuse  to  make  any  attempt  in  the  present  state 
of  the  stage,  declaring  that  they  will  not  throw 
away  their  time  and  talents.  As  to  actors,  from 
what  we  have  lately  seen  and  heard,  we  believe 
that  there  is  scarcely  a  single  new  one  worth 
transferring  from  the  provinces." 

"  The  experiment  about  to  be  tried  at  the 
Winter  Theatres  "  was  not  calculated  to  relieve 
the  situation.  The  policy,  outlined  by  Bunn  in 
his  address,  to  reduce  expenses  at  all  hazards, 
proved  contradictory  to  the  express  object  of 
restoring  the  national  drama.  "  We  can  conceive 
of  nothing  more  unjust  or  base,"  writes  one  of 
the  critics  on  Bunn's  combining  the  two  com- 
panies.^ The  maximum  salary  schedule  made  it 
impracticable  for  the  lessee  to  secure  the  best 
talent  for  the  stage.  Ellen  Tree  absolutely  re- 
fused to  sign  articles  at  either  patent  house,  but 
planned  a  lecture  tour  in  the  provinces  instead. 
Later  she  entered  into  an  engagement  with  an 
English  company  to  act  Shakesperean  plays  in 
Germany.  Charles  Kean  and  Wallack  were  also 
interested  in  this  project  of  going  to  Germany, 
^  New  Monthly  Magazine  for  1833,  pt.  ii,  p.  247. 


PETITION   FOR  A  THIRD  THEATRE    387 

and  about  the  middle  of  November  (1833)  the 
company  sailed  for  Hamburg.  Powell  came  to 
America  and  acted  here  very  successfully  during 
the  season  of  1833-34.  Sheridan  Knowles,  after 
starring  it  in  the  provinces,  contemplated  a  trip 
to  America  for  the  same  season,  but  he  after- 
wards changed  his  mind  and  devoted  himself  as 
actor  and  author  to  the  service  of  the  Victoria 
(Coburg).  The  next  year  (1834),  however,  he 
carried  out  his  original  plan,  and  came  to  the 
United  States.^  "We  are  grieved  to  hear," 
breaks  out  the  "  Observer "  (September  15, 
1833),  "and  can  scarcely  believe,  that  the  exist- 
ing circumstances  of  the  drama  in  this  country 
are  likely  for  a  time  to  banish  from  our  shores 
not  only  Ellen  Tree,  but  Sheridan  Knowles. 
This  indeed  looks  like  the  encouragement  of  our 
national  drama,  when  almost  our  only  original 
author  is  obliged  to  seek  shelter  and  sustenance 
in  foreign  countries !  The  Germans  have  a  just 
admiration  of  Shakespeare,  and  will  no  doubt 
rejoice  in  the  opportunity  of  seeing  his  plays 
performed  by  English  actors." 

The  effort  to  get  relieved  from  the  theatrical 
monopoly  lingered  on  for  a  few  months.  Serle 
took  up  the  cause  after  the  rejection  of  Knowles's 

^  Life  of  James  Sheridan  Knowles,  p.  118.  For  the  move- 
ments of  the  "  exiled  actors  "  see  also  Morning  Chronicle  for 
September  23  and  November  18,  1833. 


388  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

petition,  and  sought  to  enlist  the  leading  actors 
and  dramatists.  Maeready  entered  into  the  plan 
so  far  as  to  suggest,  as  some  security  to  actors, 
authors,  and  the  public,  a  system  of  graduated 
prices,  based  on  the  quality  of  the  dramatic 
exhibition,  as  indicated  by  the  Lord  Chamber- 
lain on  the  license  granted.  Wallack  furiously 
attacked  the  plan,  "  contending  for  universal  and 
unrestricted  license  to  act  the  drama  in  every 
street."  ^  A  compromise  was  at  last  reached  in  a 
plan  which  proposed  to  confine  the  classic  drama 
to  the  four  large  theatres  of  Westminster,  re- 
stricting the  performance  of  the  regular  drama 
elsewhere  to  a  great  distance.  Maeready  was  to 
confer  with  Arnold  and  Morris  on  the  subject, 
and,  if  they  should  enter  into  the  proposed  plan, 
all  parties  were  to  join  in  a  petition  to  Parlia- 
ment.^ But  nothing  came  of  this  attempt, 
and  the  matter  was  dropped  until  further  de- 
velopment caused  the  authors  to  unite  in 
a  final  effort  to  defend  themselves  against  the 
monopoly. 

1  Macready's  Diaries,  December  25,  1833. 

2  Ibid.  December  31,  1833.  From  tbe  allusion  to  Arnold 
and  Morris,  it  appears  that  Drury  Lane,  Covent  Garden,  the 
English  Opera  House,  and  the  Little  Theatre  in  the  Haymar- 
ket,  were  the  four  theatres  included  in  the  plan. 


CHAPTER  XIV 

THE   END    OP  THE   STRUGGLE 

THE  last  act  of  the  tragi-comic  drama  was 
drawing  to  a  close.  The  majors  had  ceased 
to  persecute  the  minors,  and  were  content  to  hear 
of  "  Macbeth  at  the  Olympic,  the  School  of  Scan- 
dal at  the  Adelphi,  or  Hamlet  at  the  Surrey,"  so 
long  as  they  could  defend  themselves  within  their 
own  stronghold ;  for  the  time  had  at  last  arrived 
when  the  minor  managers  invaded  the  ranks  of 
the  patentees,  carrjdng  off  the  great  actors  to 
"star"  at  the  little  houses.*  The  lesser  managers 
were  the  better  able  to  do  this,  as  they  depended 
largely  on  the  talents  of  the  leading  performer 
and  did  not  attempt  to  keep  the  average  high 
for  the  whole  company.  Moreover  their  highest 
admission  was  only  5s.,  while  the  boxes  at  the 
patent  houses  were  7s.  Kean  was  Kean  at  either 
price. 

The  tendency  was  greatly  increased  by  the 
attitude  of  the  Marquis  of  Conyngham,  who 
came  into  the  lord  chamberlainship  in  1836. 
From  the  outset,  he  was  extremely  hostile  to  the 
monopoly  and  correspondingly  friendly  to  the 
1  Bunn,  The  Stage,  i,  48,  49. 


390  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

minors.  The  Haymarket  Theatre,  that  had  had 
its  license  but  recently  extended  to  eight  months, 
was  now  given  a  further  increase  to  ten  months. 
The  season  of  1839  at  that  theatre  amounted 
to  250  nights.  It  has  already  been  mentioned 
that  the  Strand  was  now  licensed,  and  that  the 
Lyceum,  Adelphi,  and  Olympic  all  received  an 
addition  of  two  months  to  their  licenses,  while 
Braham  was  j)ermitted  to  open  a  new  theatre, 
the  St.  James.  Add  to  these  the  sanction  of  the 
Lord  Chamberlain  to  the  Opera  Buffa  (a  minor 
Italian  opera  house),  the  granting  of  the  privi- 
lege of  promenade  concerts  at  the  English  Opera 
House,  extra  favors  shown  the  King's  Theatre, 
and,  finally,  the  restriction  of  the  patent  houses 
to  English  pieces  only,  and  one  may  get  some 
notion  of  Lord  Conyngham's  policy  respecting 
the  theatrical  question.  It  took  the  greater  part 
of  a  century  for  the  patentees  to  learn  that  the 
Licensing  Act  (so  much  praised  by  Gibber  and 
the  friends  of  theatrical  monopoly  at  the  time  of 
its  enactment)  might  operate  against,  as  well  as 
for,  the  patent  houses.  As  pointed  out  by  Ches- 
terfield and  others,  that  act  made  the  Lord 
Chamberlain  the  veritable  sovereign  over  the 
drama  and  the  stage.  Such  a  power  might  be 
harmless,  or  it  might  be  dangerous.  For  a  long 
period  of  years  its  exercise  was  considered  most 
beneficial  by  those  it  happened  to  protect, —  the 


THE  END  OF  THE  STRUGGLE  391 

patentees,  and  most  oppressive  by  those  it 
sought  to  exterminate,  —  the  minors.  But  there 
was  nothing  in  the  provisions  of  10  George  II  to 
prevent  a  reversal  of  the  application  of  the 
power  vested  in  the  Lord  Chamberlain.  The 
turn  in  the  lane  had  been  reached  at  last. 

The  operations  of  the  Lord  Chamberlain's 
office  to  the  undoing  of  the  monopoly  may  best 
be  seen  in  the  Lenten  controversy.  This  ex- 
tended over  a  series  of  years,  and  forms  one  of 
the  last  spokes  in  the  patentees'  wheel  of  mis- 
fortune. I  select  this  example  for  the  reason, 
also,  that  it  clearly  illustrates  the  anomalous 
condition  of  the  laws  regulating  the  theatres,  — 
one  of  the  main  arguments  for  the  abolition  of 
the  monopoly.  Early  in  1831,  C.  Kemble  (as 
patentee  of  Covent  Garden)  applied  to  the  Lord 
Chamberlain  for  permission  to  perform  the  regu- 
lar drama  on  Wednesdays  and  Fridays  during 
Lent,  but  was  denied  the  privilege.^  The  fol- 
lowing year  no  such  application  was  made,  as  it 
was  thought  that  the  patent  theatres  could  not 
be  kept  open  profitably.  In  1833,  however,  both 
the  patentees  applied  for  Lenten  privileges. 
The  contemplated  engagements  which  Captain 
Polhill  had  in  view  at  that  time  rendered  it 
important  to  his  interests  that  permission  to 
play  during  Lent  without  interruption  should  be 
1  Buim  says  (ii,  194)  in  January,  1832,  but  this  is  a  mistake. 


392  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

conceded.  Without  awaiting  the  Lord  Cham- 
berlain's reply  to  this  request,  the  Drury  Lane 
manager,  on  the  25th  of  February,  announced 
Moses  in  Egypt  for  the  Wednesday  following. 
The  Duke  of  Devonshire  thereupon  sent  his 
deputy  (T.  B.  Mash)  to  learn  of  Polhill  if  he 
did  not  deem  a  former  communication  from  the 
Loi'd  Chamberlain  sufficient  (referring,  no  doubt, 
to  the  negative  answer  to  Kemble's  application 
in  1831).  Polhill  and  his  advisers  showed  con- 
siderable spirit  on  the  occasion,  talked  of  appeal- 
ing to  the  people,  and  so  on ;  whereupon  a  posi- 
tive command  on  the  subject  was  issued  by  the 
Lord  Chamberlain's  orders.  On  the  following 
morning  the  Drury  Lane  lessee,  accompanied  by 
his  manager  (Bunn),  called  on  the  Duke  of 
Devonshire  and  besought  him  to  permit  for  one 
night  the  performance  as  advertised,  after  which, 
if  anything  in  it  were  found  objectionable,  it 
would  be  withdrawn.  But  to  this  proposal  the 
Duke  gave  a  peremptory  refusal,  on  the  ground 
that,  as  the  piece  announced  consisted  of  danc- 
ing, it  could  not  be  otherwise  than  objectionable. 
The  matter  here  ended  for  a  time.  The  "Ob- 
server "  assumed  that  the  Lord  Chamberlain's 
decision  "  met  with  the  entire  and  unqualified 
approbation  of  the  highest  authority."  ^ 

The   peculiar   thing  about  the  circumstance 

^  Morning  Chronicle,  January  28,  March  4,  1S33. 


THE  END   OF  THE   STRUGGLE  393 

relative  to  the  Lenten  prohibition  is  that  it  ap- 
plied to  the  patent  theatres  only,  inasmuch  as 
the  Lord  Chamberlain's  authority,  as  defined 
by  the  Licensing  Act,  did  not  extend  beyond 
the  liberties  of  Westminster.  "  The  position  in 
which  the  patent  theatres  are  placed  by  the  re- 
cent prohibition,"  observes  the  "London  Times," 
"  is  not  a  little  curious.  The  term  '  monopoly  ' 
in  their  case  has  come  to  imply  their  not  being 
able  to  do  what  the  other  theatres  do.  Thus  at 
the  Victoria  and  other  minor  theatres  the  course 
of  the  drama  proceeds  as  usual,  while  at  the 
Adelphi  a  series  of  entertainments,  of  which 
comic  humor  is  the  leading  feature,  are  given 
without  interruption ;  while  at  Covent  Gar- 
den a  sacred  drama,  on  the  story  of  Jephtha, 
conveying  solemn  impressions,  from  some  of 
Handel's  finest  music,  is  prohibited  as  a  profana- 
tion of  this  period  of  fasting  and  mortification. 
There  is  doubt,  it  seems,  where  the  odium  should 
fix  —  on  the  Lord  Chamberlain  or  on  the  Bishop 
of  London.  Let  some  intelligent  Member  of 
Parliament,  for  common  respect  to  property  de- 
serves it,  bring  the  question  before  the  House  of 
Commons,  so  that  the  blame  may  rest  in  the 
right  place.  The  incident  is  enough  to  make  us 
the  laughing-stock  of  the  whole  continent."  ^ 
No  further  attempt  was  made  by  the  patentees 
^  Quoted  by  Examiner,  February  23,  1834. 


394  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

to  introduce  performances  on  Wednesdays  and 
Fridays  during  Lent  until  1837,  when  Bunn 
proposed  to  bid  defiance  to  the  authority  of  the 
Marquis  of  Conyngham.  The  opera  of  Fair 
Mosamond  was  presented  at  Drury  Lane  on 
Tuesday,  February  28,  1837.  The  success  of 
the  piece  induced  the  manager  to  advertise  it 
for  Thursday  and  Friday  of  the  same  week.  On 
Thursday,  March  2,  the  Lord  Chamberlain  sent 
a  letter  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Drury  Lane 
Committee,  forbidding  the  theatre  to  be  opened 
on  the  following  evening.  This  prohibition  was 
explained  on  the  ground  that  it  was  customary  to 
permit  only  sacred  entertainments  on  the  Wed- 
nesdays and  Fridays  of  Lent.  The  announce- 
ment for  the  Friday  performance  was  recalled 
accordingly.  But  Bunn  resented  this  tyrannical 
use  of  power,  by  preparing  a  petition*  to  Parlia- 
ment, in  which  the  facts  were  stated  in  respect  to 
the  closing  of  the  theatre  on  the  night  in  ques- 
tion. The  memorial  then  submits  to  the  House 
of  Commons  the  partiality  displayed  in  favor  of 
the  Adelphi,  Strand,  and  St.  James  theatres  (all 
of  them  as  much  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
Lord  Chamberlain  as  Drury  Lane),  by  allowing 
them  to  keep  open  on  the  evening  prohibited  to 
the  patent  house,  and  that  too  "  to  give  a  variety 
of  entertainments  of  a  mixed  and  ribald  charac- 
1  Bunn,  The  Stage,  ii,  198-204. 


THE  END   OF  THE  STRUGGLE  395 

ter."  In  detail  the  Adelphi  was  open  on  the 
Wednesdays  and  Fridays  of  Lent  with  an  act- 
ress in  "  the  delineation  of  the  passions,"  with 
comic  singing  by  different  persons.  Among  the 
songs  on  these  occasions  was  "Jim  Crow,"  and 
other  negro  melodies.  The  Bedouin  Arabs  were 
also  performers  at  the  Adelphi ;  and  a  mono- 
logue and  scenic  displays  were  among  the  at- 
tractions. The  St.  James  had  been  open  on  the 
same  (Friday)  evening  with  "  comic  songs," 
"  imitations  of  the  London  actors,"  and  a  pan- 
tomime. The  Strand  had  presented  "  A  Wallet 
of  Whims  and  Waggeries,"  and  a  variety  of 
music,  dancing,  juggling,  gymnastic  exercises, 
and  scenic  views. 

Mr.  T.  S.  Duncombe  undertook  the  support 
of  Bunn's  petition.  The  Lord  Chancellor  was 
first  approached  in  the  hope  that  his  influence 
might  be  secured  in  behalf  of  the  patentee. 
From  the  communications  which  passed  between 
the  Chancellor  and  Duncombe  it  appears  that 
the  custom  of  observing  Lent  had  ceased  to  exist 
as  regarded  the  minor  theatres,  but  that  it  had 
continued  at  Drury  Lane  "on  account  of  its 
having  heretofore  suited  the  lessee's  convenience 
to  remain  closed  on  those  evenings."  Duncombe 
came  near  voicing  the  general  sentiment  on  the 
subject  when  he  declared  that,  "  when  we  know 
what  is  going  on  in  every  portion  of  this  metrop- 


396  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

olis  up  to  the  days  now  in  dispute,  all  parties 
consider  the  restriction  attempted  to  be  placed 
on  Drury  Lane  Tlieatre  as  a  gross  jjiece  of 
humbug,  and,  as  I  contend,  a  stretch  of  power 
on  the  part  of  the  Lord  Chamberlain's  depart- 
ment unsanctioned  by  law." ' 

Pending  the  action  of  Parliament  on  his  peti- 
tion the  manager  of  Drury  Lane  decided  to 
open  the  theatre  on  Friday,  March  17,  in  defiance 
of  the  Lord  Chamberlain's  prohibition.  The  com- 
munication containing  this  bold  determination 
was  shown  to  Sir  John  Russell,  then  Secretary 
of  the  Home  Department,  and  to  other  members 
of  Government.  It  was  their  opinion  that  if  the 
parties  interested  in  Drury  Lane  Theatre  per- 
sisted in  their  intention  of  opening  for  per- 
formances on  Wednesdays  or  Fridays  in  Lent, 
"they  would  expose  themselves  to  all  the  penal 
consequences  of  persons  playing  without  a  li- 
cense ;  "  and  it  was  clearly  intimated  that  a  fur- 
ther prosecution  of  the  subject  by  the  manager  of 
Drury  Lane  might  endanger  his  patent. 

The  victory  on  this  occasion,  as  formerly,  was 
unquestionably  on  the  side  of  the  Lord  Cham- 
berlain ;  but  while  the  minors  enjoyed  to  their 
full  the  situation,  the  general  public  was  thor- 
oughly  indignant   at    the   Lenten   farce,   which 

^  This  most  interesting  episode  has  not  been  injured  in  the 
relating  by  Bunn.   See  The  Stage,  ii,    194,  215. 


THE   END   OF   THE    STRUGGLE  397 

belonged  to  a  bygone  age.  For  once,  though 
the  fact  produced  no  material  benefits  to  the 
patentees,  the  popular  sympathy  was  on  the 
side  of  the  monopoly.  This  was  due,  however, 
rather  to  the  nature  of  the  controversy  than  to  any 
respect  for  patent  rights.  "  There  are  no  Orato- 
rios this  year,  —  pretenses  '  most  musical,  most 
melancholy,'  for  keeping  open  the  two  Great 
Theatres  on  the  nights  called  '  holy,' "  remarks  the 
"  Spectator"  (February  25)  on  the  Lenten  quarrel 
of  1837,  "  so  that  on  Wednesday  and  Friday  the 
two  greats  are  deserted.  Co  vent  Garden  looks 
like  the  mausoleum  of  the  departed  Drama  — 
*  the  tomb  of  all  the  Capulets  ; '  and  Drury  like 
a  great  warehouse  of  stage  properties.  The  sa- 
credness  of  these  '  holy  days,'  by  the  way,  is  of 
a  very  peculiar  character  ;  it  is  only  profaned  by 
dramatic  performances  at  the  theatres  licensed 
by  the  Lord  Chamberlain.  The  medley  entertain- 
ments at  the  Adelphi,  the  St.  James's,  and  the 
New  Strand  Theatre  —  which  last  Webster  has 
engaged  for  the  Lent  nights  only  —  bear  the  same 
relation  to  the  regular  performances  on  other 
nights  as  those  evasive  esculents,  salt  fish,  pars- 
nips, and  pancakes,  do  to  the  flesh  and  fowl  of 
other  days.  .  .  .  Really,  it  is  time  that  these 
conventional  hypocrisies  should  be  done  away 
with.  ...  A  Protestant  crusade  against  salt 
fish  would  be  a  fine  thing  :  the  Pope's  bull  would 


398  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

stand  no  chance  against  the  roast  beef  of  Eng- 
land." 

In  1839  Bimn  made  a  final  attempt  to  give 
entertainments  on  the  forbidden  evenings.  This 
time  the  proposed  "show"  was  Van  Amburgh's 
Lions.  In  an  attempt  to  rid  himself  of  the  an- 
noyance and  tyranny  of  the  Lord  Chamberlain, 
the  Drury  Lane  manager  and  his  performers 
petitioned  Parliament,  on  the  18th  of  February 
(1839),  to  be  relieved  from  the  authority  of 
that  official  during  Lent.  As  on  the  previous 
occasion,  Duncombe  took  charge  of  Bunn's  cause 
in  the  House,  and  though  objections  were  raised 
to  the  irregularity  of  presenting  a  petition  with- 
out first  giving  formal  notice,  he  succeeded  in 
getting  a  motion  read  to  address  the  Queen,  sup- 
plicating Her  Majesty  to  order  the  Lord  Cham- 
berlain not  to  restrict  theatres  in  Westminster 
from  exhibiting  amusements  permitted  to  other 
theatres  in  the  country.  The  motion,  however, 
was  lost  by  a  very  large  majority.^ 

Failing  in  his  effort  to  get  the  House  to  sug- 
gest the  line  of  duty  to  the  Crown,  on  the  28th 
of  February,  Duncombe  contented  himself  with 
a  motion  to  commit  the  sentiment  of  the  mem- 
bers to  the  resolution,  "That  it  is  the  opinion  of 
this  House  that  during  Lent  no  greater  restric- 

^  The  vote  stood  70  to  160.  Hansard's  Parliamentary  Debates, 
3d  Series,  vol.  45,  cols.  577-583. 


THE  END   OF  THE   STRUGGLE  399 

tions  should  be  passed  upon  theatrical  entertain- 
ments within  the  city  of  Westminster  than  are 
placed  upon  the  like  amusements  at  the  same 
period  in  every  other  part  of  the  metropolis."  In 
presenting  this  resolution,  Duncombe  created 
much  amusement  for  the  House,  at  the  expense  of 
ministers  and  other  high  officials  of  state  and 
church,  by  showing  up  the  absurdity  of  the 
Lenten  theory  in  the  light  of  actual  practice.^ 
Relative  to  the  theatrical  controversy  there  was 
but  one  rational  conclusion  :  to  leave  the  West- 
minster theatres  at  the  caprice  of  the  Lord 
Chamberlain,  in  reference  to  Lent,  was  a  piece 
of  manifest  injustice. 

Lord  John  Russell  was  the  main  opponent  to  the 
motion.  He  stated  that,  after  the  question  came 
before  the  House  on  the  18th  of  February,  he 
had  conferred  with  the  Bishop  of  London,  who 
gave  as  his  opinion  that  the  Westminster  theatres 
ought  to  close  on  the  Wednesdays  and  Fridays 
during  Lent,  out  of  respect  to  the  established 
religion  of  the  country.  Lord  John  then  re- 
viewed the  legislative  acts  which  had  led  to  the 
anomalous  condition  of  th'e  theatres  respecting 
Lent.    The  Licensing  Act  gave  the  Lord  Cham- 

1  The  debates  on  Duncombe'  s  motion  of  28th  of  February 
are  reported  by  Hansard,  Parliamentary  Debates,  3d  Series, 
vol.  45,  columns  1020-1045.  Bunn  {The  Stage,  vol.  iii,  ch.  4, 
especially  pp.  128-152)  gives  a  very  complete  account  of  the 
proceedings  in  and  out  of  Parliament. 


400  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A -FREE  STAGE 

berlain  jurisdiction  over  theatrical  entertain- 
ments in  Westminster,  and  ever  since  the 
enactment  of  that  law  (and  for  the  matter  of 
that,  long  before),  the  custom  of  observing  Lent 
in  that  portion  of  the  metropolis  had  been  prac- 
ticed. By  another  act  of  Parliament  the  power 
to  license  theatres  outside  of  Westminster,  within 
a  radius  of  twenty  miles  from  London,  was 
vested  in  the  magistrates.  While  it  had  turned 
out  that  those  places  of  entertainment  outside 
of  Westminster  had  been  exhibiting  perform- 
ances on  "  holy  days,"  nevertheless,  they  were 
constantly  liable  to  severe  penalties  for  being 
illegally  established.  If  managers  within  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  Lord  Chamberlain  complained 
of  the  hardship  of  being  compelled  to  close  on 
Wednesdays  and  Fridays  during  Lent,  their 
attention  was  called  to  the  provision  in  their 
licenses  restricting  them  on  the  days  in  question. 
Furthermore  the  antiquity  of  the  custom  would 
seem  a  sufficient  reason  for  the  observance.  Lord 
John  acknowledged  the  lack  of  uniformity  in  the 
practice  of  the  custom,  but  maintained  that  the 
rest  of  the  metropolis  should  conform  to  West- 
minster rather  than  the  latter  should  follow  the 
rest  of  the  city  in  abolishing  the  convention. 

The  majority  of  the  House  disagreed  with  the 
Secretary  of  the  Home  Department.  It  was 
declared  an  absurdity  and  an  injustice  to  insist 


THE   END   OF   THE   STRUGGLE  401 

on  a  religious  observance  anywhere,  if  not  every- 
where, in  the  Kingdom ;  and  it  was  denounced 
as  sheer  hypocrisy  to  maintain  one  religious 
law  for  the  rich  and  another  for  the  poor.  Some 
went  so  far  as  to  assert  that  the  whole  Lenten 
farce  was  of  Popish  origin,  and  no  part  of  the 
Protestant  forms.  That  part  of  Sir  John's  speech 
r^ferring  to  the  Bishop's  advice  was  pooh-poohed  ; 
the  members  knew  all  that  before,  and  they 
knew  also  that  the  voice  of  the  people  would 
support  the  motion  before  the  House,  in  spite  of 
the  Bishop's  testimony,  and  in  spite  of  the  Gov- 
ernment's attitude  (as  represented  by  Lord  John 
Russell).  The  time  had  passed  for  making  Eng- 
lish people  look  upon  Wednesdays  and  Fridays 
as  different  from  the  other  days  in  Lent.  The 
debate  on  the  resolution  grew  exceedingly  warm. 
The  position  of  the  Government  seemed  at  utter 
variance  with  the  popular  mind.  The  Chancel- 
lor of  the  Exchequer  (Mr.  T.  S.  Rice)  joined 
Lord  John  Russell  in  his  opposition  to  the  meas- 
ure ;  while  D'Israeli,  of  course,  supported  the 
motion.  But  party  lines  were  by  no  means  fol- 
lowed in  the  debate,  and  when  the  House  divided 
it  was  found  that  the  resolution  had  a  majority 
of  20,  the  vote  standing  92  to  72. 

Supported  by  this  action  of  the  House  of  Com- 
mons Bunn  announced  the  opera  of  Farinelli 
at  Drury  Lane  for  Friday,  the  8th  of  March 


402  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

(1839).  But  to  .the  patentee's  unbounded  sur- 
prise and  chagrin  an  interdiction  came  from 
the  Lord  Chamberlain's  office  (March  C)  for- 
bidding the  performance.  And  this  time  the 
command  was  "  by  direction  of  Her  Majesty's 
Ministers."  *  The  quarrel  was  taken  up  immedi- 
ately by  the  public  prints,  and  the  whole  trans- 
action on  the  part  of  the  Lord  Chamberlain  wa^ 
characterized  as  trumpery.-  On  the  same  day  of 
this  prohibition  Duncombe  called  for  the  cor- 
respondence between  the  Lord  Chamberlain  and 
the  Drury  Lane  manager  on  the  subject,^  and 
five  days  later  (March  11)  brought  in  another 
motion  to  the  effect  that  the  House  had  learned 
"  with  regret  and  surprise  "  that  Her  Majesty's 
Ministers  had  seen  fit  "  to  interfere  with  the 
wholly  unfettered  discretion  which  the  legislature 
had  been  pleased  to  vest  in  the  Lord  Chamber- 
lain, ...  by  directing  that  officer  .  .  .  so  as  to 
defeat  the  manifest  object  of  a  resolution  of  this 
Commons  House  of  Parliament."  In  discussing 
this  motion  Duncombe  charged  the  Ministers 
with  directing  the  actions  of  the  Lord  Chamber- 
lain in  closing  the  theatres,  and  that  by  so  doing 
they  had  not  only  infringed  the  prerogative  of 

1  Bunn,  The  Stage,  iii,  140. 

2  See  Morning   Chronicle    for   February  27,  1839.    Article 
quoted  by  Bunn,  iii,  141-14-5. 

^  Hansard's  Parliamentary  Debates,   3d  Series,  vol.  45,  col. 
1318. 


THE    END    OF   THE   STRUGGLE  403 

the  Crown,  but  also  "  had  been  most  disrespectful 
to  the  House  of  Commons." 

Lord  John  Russell  did  not  deny  that  he  and 
other  members  of  the  Cabinet  had  advised  the 
Lord  Chamberlain  in  what  he  had  done,  because 
they  had  not  deemed  a  mere  resolution  of  Par- 
liament superior  to  the  laws  of  the  land.  Fur- 
thermore, taking  into  consideration  the  contra- 
diction of  sentiment  shown  in  the  two  votes 
taken  in  the  House  (the  first  on  the  18th,  the 
second  on  the  28th  of  February),  he  saw  no 
reason  to  suppose  that  the  resolution  embodied 
the  deliberate  opinion  of  the  members.  The 
contradiction  of  the  existing  theatrical  laws  in 
the  metropolis  was  admitted,  but  the  discrepancy 
was  placed  to  the  blame  of  the  minors,  and  not 
the  majors,  in  violating  the  statutes.  At  this 
point,  it  is  interesting  to  note  that  Sir  John 
Russell  stated  that  it  was  the  purpose  of  the 
Government  to  correct  the  deficient  laws  regu- 
lating theatres  in  London,  either  by  introducing 
a  bill,  or  by  providing,  in  some  of  the  police 
measures  then  before  the  House,  for  magistrates 
to  have  the  power  to  grant  licenses  for  theatrical 
entertainments,  as  well  as  for  music  and  dancing. 
On  this  phase  of  the  subject  he  gave  it  as  his 
sincere  opinion  that  "  the  power  of  procuring 
good  and  respectable  theatrical  entertainments 
slionld  extend  throughout  the  metropolis."  ^ 
^  Parliamentary  Debates,  3d  Series,  vol.  46,  229-243. 


404  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

By  this  strategic  move  toward  conciliation, 
satisfying,  in  a  degree,  Duncombe's  insistence 
on  some  definite  promise  that  the  regulations 
respecting  Lent  should  be  removed  the  following 
year,  the  motion  was  prevented  from  passing. 
But  the  airing  of  the  Lenten  controversy  made 
clear  the  necessity  of  some  immediate  regulation 
whereby  favor  should  be  shown  impartially  to 
majors  and  minors. 

The  Lenten  restrictions  were  not  the  only 
indignities  which  the  "  inviolable  patents  "  had 
to  suffer  at  the  hands  of  the  Lord  Chamberlain. 
The  character  of  the  performances  themselves 
was  limited  to  the  English  tongue.  In  May, 
1837,  Bunn  secured  Madame  Pasta  for  a  few 
nights  in  Italian  opera,  but  the  announcement 
was  met  with  a  mandate  from  the  Chamberlain's 
office  forbidding  everything  at  Drury  Lane  ex- 
cept English  entertainments.  This  order  referred 
to  the  "Opera  Arrangement "  of  1792,  by  which 
no  Italian  operas  were  to  be  given  at  either  of 
the  patent  houses,  but  only  at  the  King's  The- 
atre.^ It  was  retorted  that  by  that  arrangement 
the  Opera  House  was  to  be  opened  on  Tuesdays 
and  Saturdays  only,  and  that  recently  the 
Chamberlain  had  violated  the  treaty  of  1792  by 

^  On  the  accession  of  Victoria  to  the  throne  (1837),  the 
Opera  House  in  the  Haymarket  became  "  The  Queen's 
Theatre,"  or  "  Her  Majesty's." 


THE   END   OF   THE   STRUGGLE  405 

permitting  the  Italian  Opera  House  to  be  open 
"  week  after  week  "  for  six  nights  in  the  week, 
and,  in  addition,  to  give  six  successive  morning 
concerts,  besides  German  and  French  operas, 
French  plays,  and  even  English  performances. 
But  it  was  useless  to  point  out  to  the  Marquis 
of  Conyngham  that  "arrangements  "  and  "laws  " 
and  "settlements"  had  been  broken  time  and 
again  by  all  parties,  and  hence  were  dead  let- 
ters ;  that  official  was  determined  to  be  his  own 
interpreter  of  these  things. 

No  longer  able  to  endure  the  galling  yoke  of 
Lord  Conyngham's  tyranny,  the  Drury  Lane 
manager,  in  his  extremity,  dared  even  to  ap- 
proach Windsor  Castle.  But  instead  of  getting 
an  audience  from  His  Majesty,  he  received  a  note 
instead,  which  coolly  stated  that  if  Mr.  Bunn's 
visit  was  with  reference  to  the  theatre,  he  must 
carry  his  affair  to  the  Lord  Chamberlain.  Bunn, 
it  should  be  remembered,  was,  in  a  sense,  a 
member  of  the  King's  household,  since  he  be- 
longed to  the  corps  of  gentlemen-at-arms.  Never- 
theless the  sovereign  took  such  umbrage  at  the 
circumstance  that  he  remarked  that  "  if  Mr. 
Bunn  attempted  to  interfere  with  His  Majesty's 
prerogative  in  regard  to  the  patent  theatres,  he 
should  be  under  the  necessity  of  requiring  him 
to  leave  the  corps  of  gentlemen-at-arms."  ^ 
1  Bunn,  The  Stage,  ii,  222-229. 


406  THE  STRUQGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

This  prohibition  respecting  Madame  Pasta 
came  at  the  very  time  when  tlie  licenses  of  the 
leading  minors  under  the  Loi-d  Chamberlain's 
jurisdiction  were  extended,  and,  for  this  reason, 
operated  as  a  double  hardship  on  the  patent- 
ees. The  House  of  Commons  was  appealed  to, 
through  T.  S.  Duncombe  and  Sir  Benjamin  Hall, 
to  amend  the  Licensing  Act;  but  the  bill  was 
so  modified  in  the  House  of  Lords  as  to  increase 
rather  than  duninish  the  Lord  Chamberlain's 
power.  Before  final  action  could  be  taken  on  the 
measure  His  Majesty  died,  and  Parliament  was 
dissolved. 

The  antagonism  of  the  Lord  Chamberlain  to 
the  patent  theatre  found  a  new  opportunity  for 
exhibiting  itself  at  the  close  of  the  season  of 
1836-37.  The  twenty-one  year  license  issued  to 
the  Drury  Lane  Committee  in  September,  1816, 
had  just  expired.  When  Bunn  proposed  to  open 
Drury  Lane  in  the  autumn  of  1837  he  received 
a  message  from  the  Chamberlain's  office  demand- 
ing on  what  authority  he  based  his  actions.  In 
answer  the  Drury  Lane  manager  brought  for- 
ward the  Killigrew  patent,  which  had  been  pur- 
chased, finally,  from  the  Covent  Garden  pro- 
prietors December  13,  1813,  as  already  related. 
This  was  the  first  time  since  the  old  parchment 
had  gone  to  sleep  in  1682  that  it  was  claimed  to 
be  of  active  worth  (with  the  possible  exception 


THE  END   OF  THE   STRUGGLE  407 

of  the  brief  period  wheu  John  Rich  controlled 
Covent  Garden  and  Lincoln's-Inn-Fields).  And 
it  was  the  first  time  since  the  days  of  Charles  II 
that  it  was  positively  known  (by  the  general 
public)  to  be  in  existence/  Its  reappearance 
came  too  late  to  be  of  any  material  benefit  to  its 
owners,  while  the  circumstance  was  in  no  sense 
calculated  to  relieve  the  strained  relations  be- 
tween the  patentee  and  the  Lord  Chamberlain. 

One  more  illustration  will  serve  to  make  clear 
the  widening  breach  between  the  patent  theatre 
and  the  office  which  had  so  long  defended  the 
monopoly  of  amusements.  In  1838,  M.  Spontini 
contemplated  a  series  of  German  operas  to  be 
given  in  London  the  following  year,  and,  as  he 
afterwards  claimed,  got  a  promise  from  the  Lord 
Chamberlain  to  issue  him  a  license  for  that  pur- 
pose. In  the  first  year  (1833)  of  Bunn's  lessee^ 
ship  at  the  patent  house  Spontini  had  been  in- 
troduced so  successfully  in  opera  at  Drury  Lane 
that  Bunn  now  (1839)  conceived  the  plan  of  as- 
suming the  responsibility  of  the  German  opera 
venture,  and  arranged  with  Spontini  accordingly. 
As  the  latter  required  an  advance  payment  of 
his  salary  (,£1000)  the  Drury  Lane  manager, 

1  The  Stage,  ii,  280-81.  Bunn  attributes  the  animosity  of 
Lord  Conyngham  to  this  circumstance,  since,  by  the  appearance 
of  the  "  dormant  patent,"  the  annual  fee  of  £100  to  the  Lord 
Chamberlain  ceased.    The  Stage,  iii,  92. 


408  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

although  feeling  protected  by  his  patent,  thought 
to  make  assurance  doubly  sure  by  sounding  the 
Lord  Chamberlain  on  the  subject  of  the  German 
opera.  That  official  requested  Bunn  to  put  his 
case  in  writing.  As  Bunn  was  at  that  time  lessee 
of  the  English  Opera  House  also,  he  deemed  it 
wise  to  apply  for  the  opera  license  at  that  the- 
atre, and  not  run  the  risk  of  compromising  his 
patent  rights  at  Drury  Lane  by  tacitly  admitting 
the  superior  power  of  a  license  to  his  patent. 
But,  as  it  turned  out,  he  had  as  well  saved  his 
shrewdness  for  some  other  occasion ;  for  he  was 
notified  in  unequivocal  terms  that  the  Lord 
Chamberlain  "  had  decided  not  to  grant  a  license 
for  German  Opera,"  and  that  "  only  English 
entertainments  of  the  stage  were  sanctioned  at 
the  Theatres  Koyal,  Drury  Lane  and  Covent 
Garden."' 

In  defense  of  his  rights  the  Drury  Lane  man- 
ager asserted  that  the  Lord  Chamberlain  had 
exceeded  his  power  in  attempting  to  close  a  play- 
house on  the  ground  that  it  had  no  license  to 
represent  a  particular  piece,  since,  it  was  claimed, 
the  Act  of  10  George  II  gave  to  that  official  of 
the  King's  household  authority  only  to  pro- 
hibit plays,  making  no  mention  of  licensing 
them.  For  example,  the  opera  of  Fair  Rosa- 
mond was  not  licensed  on  its  first  representation 

1  Bunn,  The  Stage,  iii,  79-93. 


THE   END   OF  THE   STRUGGLE  409 

(February  28,  1837),  —  the  Chamberlain  had 
stated  merely  that  he  did  not  prohibit  it. '^  But 
Bunn  must  have  known  that  this  was  a  mere 
quibble  over  terms,  and  that  the  practice  of  a 
hundred  years  was  strongly  against  him.  The  fact 
is,  that  so  long  as  the  Lord  Chamberlain  exer- 
cised his  authority  to  the  disadvantage  of  the 
minors,  and  to  the  consequent  favor  of  the  patent 
houses,  the  monopoly  made  no  complaint  of  tyr- 
anny ;  but  as  soon  as  the  tables  were  turned  the 
injustice  of  the  situation  was  quickly  appreciated 
by  the  patentees. 

It  is  a  relief  to  hasten  to  the  end.  The  truth 
must  be  told  ;  the  monopoly  in  theatrical  amuse- 
ments had  run  its  natural  course  ;  "  the  wheel  had 
turned  full  circle."  The  old  Killigrew  patent  that 
had  been  dubbed  "  dormant "  had,  in  reality, 
"  died  and  made  no  sign ; "  and  the  contentions  for 
the  decade  (1832-1842)  were  merely  over  the 
details  of  the  funeral.  The  patentees  were  the 
first  to  realize  the  hopelessness  of  their  situation. 
For  long  they  had  maintained  successfully  that 
the  grants  of  Charles  II  to  Killigrew  and  Dave- 
nant  conferred  upon  the  holders  of  those  docu- 
ments a  monopoly  of  the  drama,  limiting  all  other 
houses  of  theatrical  amusements  to  a  narrow 
range  of  performances.  The  reverse  of  this  had 
now  come  to  pass ;  and  the  resistance  of  Man- 
1  The  Stage,  ii,  196. 


410  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

affer  Bunn  to  the  altered  state  of  affairs  in  the 
theatrical  kingdom  only  served  to  confirm  the 
change.  The  struggle  had  been  a  long  one,  and 
iu  the  main  disheartening ;  but  the  dawn  of  the 
new  century  brought  a  gleam  of  hope  to  the  strug- 
gle for  a  liberated  stage.  Reformation  along 
many  lines  filled  the  air,  and  a  free  theatre  for  the 
regular  drama  came  in  on  the  crest  of  the  wave 
of  the  general  movement. 

As  usual  in  such  cases,  the  fact  was  assured 
before  legislation  gave  the  final  stamp  of  recog- 
nition. The  end  was  prefaced  also  by  a  petition 
from  nearly  all  the  leading  dramatic  authors  pray- 
ing for  a  law  to  protect  their  profession .  In  the  dis- 
cussion in  the  House  of  Commons  on  this  petition 
Lord  Mahon  took  occasion  to  review  the  existing 
conditions  of  the  drama  and  the  stage.  The 
mischief  to  the  dramatic  art,  it  was  declared, 
had  resulted  from  the  legislation  on  the  subject. 
The  penalty  provided  b}"  the  Act  of  10  George 
II  had  been,  said  Lord  Mahon,  a  dead  letter 
from  the  day  of  its  enactment ;  for  at  first  the 
actors  were  too  poor  to  pay  the  fine,  and  later 
they  defied  it.  It  was  this  contradiction  of  law 
and  practice  that  had  produced  the  state  of 
affairs  they  were  importuned  to  correct.  If  it 
"were  asked,  what  need  w^as  there  for  modifying 
the  laws,  since  the  minors  had  invaded  with 
impunity   the   sacred   precincts   of    the   patent 


THE  END   OF  THE   STRUGGLE  411 

monopoly  ?  it  was  answered,  that  so  long  as  the 
laws  might  be  enforced  the  safety  of  the  drama 
was  endangered,  and  the  position  of  the  actor 
made  precarious ;  for  "  nearly  every  actor  who 
trod  the  boards  of  our  theatres  was  performing 
under  the  risk  of  a  penalty  of  ,£50  a-night."  In 
like  manner,  theatres,  unless  sanctioned  by  a 
license  from  the  Lord  Chamberlain,  were  held 
to  be  illegal  in  courts  of  law ;  in  consequence  of 
which  anomalous  condition  contracts  of  authors, 
actors,  and  othei's  with  managers  of  unlicensed 
theatres  were  made  always  with  the  possibility 
of  being  declared  null  and  void.  Herein  lay 
a  new  argument  in  favor  of  a  legally  free  stage. 
Supplementing  and  abetting  this  evil  was  that 
of  the  monopoly,  repugnant  to  the  sentiments  of 
the  public,  and  to  the  interests  of  the  monopo- 
lists also.  If  the  argument  were  raised  that  the 
patent  theatres  were  necessary  for  the  encourage- 
ment and  defense  of  dramatic  genius.  Lord 
Mahon  desired  to  call  attention  to  the  facts, 
namely,  that  "  nearly  all  the  best  dramas  pro- 
duced since  the  establishment  of  the  patents  had 
been  brought  forward  irregularly  or  unwillingly. 
Johnson  forced  Goldsmith's  She  Stoo^JS  to  Con- 
quer into  the  theatre.  Tobin  died  regretting 
that  he  could  not  succeed  in  having  the  Honey- 
moon performed.  Lillo  produced  George  Barn- 
well in  an  irregular  theatre  after  it  had  been 


412  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

rejected  by  the  holders  of  the  patents.  Douglas 
was  cast  back  on  Home's  hands.  Fielding  was 
introduced  as  a  dramatist  to  the  public  at  an 
unlicensed  house,  and  Mrs.  Inchbald's  comedy 
had  lain  two  years  neglected  when  by  a  trifling 
accident  she  was  able  to  obtain  the  manager's 
approval."  While  the  public  was  thus  not  served 
by  the  monopoly,  the  managers  of  the  patent 
houses  fared  no  better.  Statistics  were  produced 
showing  that  "  the  monopolists  were  reaping 
only  bankruptcy  and  ruin."  ^ 

As  a  result  of  this  petition  from  the  dramatists 
the  House  ordered  returns  of  copies  of  any  com- 
munications that  had  been  addressed  to  the  Sec- 
retary of  State  for  the  Home  Department,  in  the 
course  of  the  year,  complaining  of  the  laws  regu- 
lating the  drama.  On  the  26th  of  the  following 
July  (1843)  a  bill  was  brought  in  known  as  the 
Theatre  Regulation  Bill.  The  speed  with  which 
this  was  carried  through  both  Houses  of  Parlia- 
ment shows  the  ripeness  of  the  time  for  settling 
the  theatrical  controversies  of  a  century.  If  peti- 
tions were  presented  against  the  measure,  or  if 
objections  were  raised  to  it  in  debate,  they  were 
all  for  the  purpose  of  making  sure  that  the  vexed 
question  should  be  settled  forever ;  for  all  par- 

^  Parliamentary  Debates,  3d  Series,  vol.  Ixiv,  cols.  791-800. 
The  petition  of  the  dramatic  authors  was  presented  to  the 
House  of  Commons  by  Lord  Mahon  in  June,  1842. 


THE   END   OF   THE   STRUGGLE  413 

ties  were  finally  agreed  that  the  incongruous  and 
unjust  theatrical  regulations  were  no  longer  to  be 
borne.  Five  days  after  its  first  reading  the  bill 
was  read  a  second  time  without  debate  in  the 
House  of  Commons  (July  31)  ;  and  on  the  4th 
of  August  it  was  considered  by  the  Committee  of 
the  whole  House. 

The  low  state  of  the  national  drama  was  ad- 
mitted by  all  those  who  spoke  on  the  measure. 
Sir  J.  Graham  made  the  assertion  that  the  chief 
plays  of  the  country  were  to  be  seen  at  the  Hay- 
market  Theatre  only.  The  patent  theatres  were 
closed  for  such  a  period  of  the  year  that  but 
for  the  Haymarket  it  might  be  said  that  Shake- 
speare's plays  could  not  be  represented  in  London 
for  several  months  in  the  year.  As  far  back  as 
1833  we  read  the  following  in  the  "New  Monthly 
Magazine  "  ^  relative  to  the  Haymarket :  "  We 
recommend  a  visit  to  this  theatre  to  all  who  have 
a  liking  for  the  old  comedy.  It  is  the  only  place 
where  we  can  get  a  glimpse  even  of  its  skirts." 
In  1835  the  "Examiner"  (July  26)  speaks 
thus  of  The  Rivals  at  the  same  theatre :  "  We 
have  seen  it  better  played  in  all  its  parts,  but  we 
never  saw  it  go  off  better.  .  .  .  We  must  say 
generally  of  the  entertainments  of  this  theatre 
that  they  are  deserving  -of  every  support.  It  is 
the  only  theatre  now  where  we  catch  a  glimpse 
1  New  Monthly  Magazine,  pt.  ii,  p.  518. 


414  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

of  the  good  old  comedy."    And  again  on  August 
16,  1835,  to  the  same  effect. 

Duncotnbe  testified  that  he  thought  the  Regu- 
lation Bill  would  operate  to  the  benefit  of  the 
patent  houses.  Indeed,  he  said,  he  happened  to 
know  that  Drury  Lane  Theatre  had  been  leased 
in  consequence  of  the  introduction  of  the  bill.* 
Mr.  Duncombe  had  made  a  canvass  of  authors, 
actors,  and  managers,  and  all  had  concurred  in 
the  opinion  that  the  conflicting  and  injurious 
laws  ought  to  be  altered.  In  discussing  the 
clause  in  the  bill  relative  to  the  question  of  what 
licenses  the  Lord  Chamberlain  should  be  em- 
powered to  grant,  the  speaker  thought  it  ought 
to  include  the  counties  of  Middlesex  and  Surrey. 
Otherwise  the  vitiating  principle  then  in  prac- 
tice might  recur,  and  the  measure  would  fall 
short  of  its  intended  purpose.  The  objection 
raised  to  this  suggestion  was  that,  by  inserting 
such  a  clause,  the  magistrates  of  the  two  counties 
named  would  be  placed  on  a  different  legal  basis 

^  The  allusion  is  to  Bunn.  At  the  close  of  the  season  1835- 
1830  the  union  of  the  two  houses  was  broken,  Bunn  giving 
up  Covent  Garden.  After  the  disgraceful  squabbles  between 
Bunn  and  Macready  (April-May,  lSo6),  the  latter  went  over 
to  Covent  Garden  and  became  its  lessee  the  following  year,  in 
opposition  to  Drury  Lane.  Bunn  remained  at  Drury  Lane 
until  1839,  when  he  left  it,  a  bankrupt.  On  the  passage  of  the 
Theatre  Regulation  Bill,  he  again,  for  a  short  time,  assumed 
control  of  Drury  Lane. 


THE  END  OF  THE  STRUGGLE  415 

from  the  justices  of  the  rest  of  the  Kingdom. 
The  amendment  was  therefore  passed  by. 

The  bill  was  reported  on  the  5th  of  August, 
passed  its  third  reading  without  debate  on  the  Tth, 
and  on  the  same  day  was  carried  to  the  House  of 
Lords  and  read  the  first  time.  Three  days  later 
it  went  through  the  second  reading,  followed  on 
the  11th  by  consideration  in  the  Lords'  Com- 
mittee. Lord  Beaumont  moved  to  strike  out  the 
clause  providing  for  Shakespeare's  plays  to  be 
represented,  and  the  Earl  of  Glengall  brought 
up  the  antiquated  argument  of  "inviolable 
patents."  Arnold,  of  the  Lyceum,  petitioned  to 
know  whether  it  was  the  intention  of  the  bill  to 
allow  the  minors  to  play  the  regular  drama  when 
they  pleased,  and  if  so,  whether  the  English 
Opera  House  would  be  included  among  the 
minors ;  if  not,  he  opposed  the  bill.  This  petition 
brought  on  a  request  from  the  representative  of 
the  patent  interests  (Earl  Glengall)  for  the 
privilege  of  the  patent  houses  to  act  Italian 
opera.  To  this  the  Marquis  of  Clanricarde 
retorted  facetiously  that  he  looked  upon  the  bill 
merely  as  a  police  measure,  to  exclude  from 
amusements  all  that  might  be  offensive  to  public 
decency  and  morals,  adding  that  it  was  no  part 
of  the  Lord  Chamberlain's  duties  to  say  whether 
the  language  of  a  performance  should  be  Eng- 
lish, Irish,  Iroquois,  or  Italian. 


416  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

There  was  no  real  objection  to  the  spirit  of 
the  bill,  only  everybody  wanted  to  make  sure 
that  his  individual  interests  were  included  under 
the  protective  wings  of  the  measure.  They  had 
so  long  been  vexed  by  narrow  and  contradictory 
laws  that  they  could  not  afPord  to  take  chances 
now.  Some  thought  that  the  only  change  made 
in  the  Lord  Chamberlain's  power  by  the  bill  was 
an  extension  of  it  to  a  radius  of  twenty  miles. 
The  general  construction,  however,  placed  upon 
the  measure  by  the  Lords,  as  by  the  Commons, 
was  that  the  Chamberlain's  duty  was  the  defense 
of  morals,  and  that,  otherwise,  managers  should 
be  left  free. 

On  the  15th  of  August  the  bill  came  up  for 
its  final  reading.  One  objection  only  was  raised 
to  it  as  originally  prepared,  namely,  to  that 
clause  empowering  the  Lord  Chamberlain  to 
prohibit,  at  his  pleasure,  the  representation  of 
any  play  whatever  in  any  theatre  in  his  juris- 
diction. This  was  thought  to  invest  that  official 
with  a  power  too  inclusive,  and  hence  too  dan- 
gerous. Two  main  benefits  were  intended  by  all 
parties  concerned  :  the  protection  of  public  peace 
and  morality,  and  the  widest  possible  freedom 
to  the  drama  in  every  quarter.  The  power  pro- 
posed to  be  given  to  the  Lord  Chamberlain 
would  assuredly  do  away  with  the  confusion  at- 
tending the  operation  of  the  laws  as  they  then 


THE  END   OF  THE  STRUGGLE  417 

existed,  —  but  it  might  also  operate  to  limit  the 
legitimate  freedom  of  the  stage.  Lord  Campbell 
moved,  therefore^  to  amend  the  clause  in  ques- 
tion by  introducing  it  in  the  following  words : 

"  Be  it  enacted,  that  for  the  preservation  of 
good  manners,  decorum,  and  of  the  public  peace, 
it  shall  be  lawful  for  the  Lord  Chamberlain,  for 
the  time  being,"  etc.  (the  remainder  of  the 
clause  to  be  left  intact). 

It  was  at  once  objected  that  the  amendment 
turned  the  restriction  to  the  opposite  extreme. 
As  a  middle  course,  the  Lord  Chancellor  pro- 
posed this  alteration  in  the  wording  of  the 
beginning  of  the  clause  :  "  Whenever  in  the 
opinion  of  the  Lord  Chamberlain  it  was  neces- 
sary for  the  promotion  of  good  manners  and 
decorum,  or  of  the  public  peace,  to  forbid  the 
performance  of  any  stage  play,  farce,  etc."  As 
thus  amended,  and  with  this  slight  and  single 
alteration,  the  Theatre  Regulation  Bill  was  read 
a  third  time  in  the  House  of  Lords  (August  15), 
returned  to  the  Lower  House  for  final  approval, 
and  passed  to  Her  Majesty  for  the  royal  assent, 
which  was  given  on  Tuesday,  August  22,  1843.^ 

At  last  the  theatrical  monopoly  had  been  le- 
gally destroyed,  though,  except  for  its  general 

^  For  the  history  of  this  bill  see  Hansard's  Parliamentary 
Debates,  3d  Series,  Ixx,  1350;  Ixxi,  7,  232,  233,  296,  313,  471, 
544,  545,  588,  589,  689,  690,  987. 


418  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

attitude  of  the  dog  in  the  manger,  it  had  been  a 
monopoly  only  in  name  for  many  years.  Except- 
ing Macready's  noble  attempt  to  revive  the 
Shakesperean  drama  at  Covent  Garden  in  1837- 
1838,  the  patent  houses  had  sunk  to  the  level  of 
their  minor  rivals.  Had  the  wise  counsel  of  the 
editor  of  the  "  Prompter  "  been  followed  in  1735, 
to  restrict  the  minors  to  the  legitimate  drama, 
the  false  position  which  the  patent  houses  had 
been  forced  to  assume  for  the  last  fifty  years  of 
their  existence  would  have  been  reversed,  and, 
though"  the  monopoly  was  sure  to  fall  sooner  or 
later,  the  patentees  might  have  enjoyed  the  last 
years  of  their  "  exclusive  privileges "  in  some 
degree  of  comfort.  But  it  was  too  late  to  change 
the  history  of  theatrical  monopoly  in  London. 
"  The  '  Patent '  monopoly  has  finished  its  work," 
writes  the  "Spectator"  (June  10,  1843)  in  the 
style  of  an  obituary  notice  prepared  in  advance. 
"The  'legitimate  drama,'  for  the  support  of 
which  the  two  great  theatres  were  endowed  with 
exclusive  privileges,  has  ceased  to  exist  —  at  least 
in  so  far  as  they  are  concerned.  The  degenerate 
successor  of  the  elder  dramatists,  that  at  the 
Restoration  was  confined  to  the  fostering  care 
of  these  two  dry  nurses,  has  been  overlaid  by 
their  huge,  overgrown  bulk ;  they  treated  it 
like  a  spoiled  child,  surfeited  it  with  sweet- 
meats, bedizened  it  with  fine  clothes,  and  amused 


THE  END   OF  THE  STRUGGLE  419 

it  with  all  sorts  of  toys,  including  a  Noah's  Ark 
full  of  animals  ;  but  while  its  hireling  guardians 
became  bloated  with  pampering,  and  ostentatious 
with  importance,  their  puny  charge  dwindled 
away  to  a  shadow,  until  it  could  not  be  recognized 
as  the  offspring  of  that  healthy  and  vigorous 
stock  which  produced  a  Shakespeare.  In  a 
word,  the  '  legitimate  di-ama  '  has  fallen  a  victim 
to  protection.  Mr.  Macready,  its  fast  and  best 
friend,  tried  every  effort  to  revive  it ;  but  in 
vain." 

It  might  be  supposed  that,  with  the  barriers 
finally  down,  the  old  fear  apprehended  so  often 
by  the  patentees  in  the  event  of  a  free  stage 
would  be  realized,  namely,  the  rise  of  theatres 
in  every  street.  Sufficient  evidence  has  appeared 
in  the  course  of  this  narrative  to  show  that 
London  was  not  famishing  for  places  of  theatrical 
amusements  in  1843.  The  last  one  built  before 
the  enactment  of  the  law  just  considered  was 
The  Princess,  in  1840  ;  and,  strange  as  it  may 
seem,  London  was  not  to  have  an  addition  to 
her  long  list  of  playhouses  for  over  twenty  years. 
In  that  period  both  of  the  old  patent  houses 
were  to  sink  to  the  low  level  toward  which  they 
had  been  surely  drifting  since  the  early  part  of 
the  century ;  and  one  of  them,  Covent  Garden, 
was  to  be  again  visited  by  fire  (1856). 

It    might   be   surmised,   also,   that   with  the 


420  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

legitimate  drama  open  to  all  comers,  the  com- 
petition for  public  favor  in  that  species  of 
theatrical  amusement  would  begin  at  once  on 
the  passage  of  the  Theatre  Regulation  Bill,  and 
be  so  fierce  as  to  force  all  the  weaklings  to  the 
wall.  But  in  this  also  we  are  disappointed  in 
our  guess.  The  law  caused  no  alteration  what- 
ever in  theatrical  conditions :  it  only  provided 
for  possibilities.  Some  few,  indeed,  did  under- 
take the  championship  of  the  Elizabethan 
drama,  but  in  a  short  time  felt  under  the  neces- 
sity of  falling  back  into  the  old  tendencies. 
Wallack,  at  the  opening  of  the  season  of  1843- 
44,  tried  to  give  the  plays  of  Shakespeare  a 
"local  habitation"  at  Covent  Garden;  but  after 
an  experience  of  two  weeks'  performances  to 
empty  benches  he  was  compelled  to  abandon  the 
project.^  One  thing,  however,  the  law  of  1843 
did  accomplish  :  it  put  to  rest  the  interminable 
quarrels  of  the  majors  and  minors,  and  wiped 
out  the  blot  of  theatrical  monopoly. 

^  TVallack  blamed  (correctly,  probably)  his  actors  for  the 
failure  to  revive  Shakespeare's  plays.  Spectator,  October  21, 
1843. 


CHAPTER  XV 

SUMMARY   AND   CONCLUSION 

FROM  a  survey  of  the  struggle  from  1660 
to  1843,  to  free  the  English  stage  from  the 
patent  monopoly  granted  by  Charles  II,  it  will 
appear  a  much  easier  task  to  point  out  the 
causes  of  the  downfall  of  the  patent  houses  than  to 
explain  why  the  theatrical  monopoly  was  permit- 
ted to  exist  so  long.  It  was  a  graft  so  utterly  for- 
eign to  the  England  of  the  nineteenth  century, 
if  not,  indeed,  of  the  eighteenth  century,  as  to 
challenge  our  wonder  why  it  was  not  lopped  off 
a  hundred  years  and  more  before  it  was  finally 
abolished.  It  may  be  that  the  inert  temper  of 
the  English  people,  the  mere  habit  of  permit- 
ting an  old  institution  to  continue,  in  some  de- 
gree accounts  for  the  old  age  of  the  monopoly 
in  theatrical  amusements.  But  a  careful  analy- 
sis of  the  facts  related  in  the  foregoing  chapters 
will,  I  think,  go  a  long  way  towards  clearing  up 
the  phenomenon.  An  examination  of  the  lead- 
ing theatrical  events  connected  with  our  subject 
will  disclose  six  main  periods,  each  of  which 
stands  for  a  more  or  less  distinct  significance  in 
the  development  of  the  idea  of  theatrical   mo- 


422  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

nopoly  ;  though  of  course  these  divisions  overlap 
and  intermingle.  In  making  this  epochal  analy- 
sis, I  would  emphasize  the  most  general  tenden- 
cies only. 

In  the  first  place,  it  will  appear  that,  from  the 
granting  of  the  patents  to  Killigrew  and  Dave- 
nant  to  about  1720,  the  ruling  sovereigns  of 
the  realm  never  thought  for  a  moment  that  the 
grants  of  Charles  II  in  anywise  limited  the  crown 
prerogative  over  public  amusements.  Charles 
himself  was  the  first  to  exercise  his  authority 
without  regard  to  his  former  patent  grants,  when 
he  united  the  patents  in  1682.  William  III  was 
advised  by  his  counselors  that  one  King  cannot 
bind  a  succeeding  Prince  in  the  matter  of  grant- 
ing theatrical  privileges ;  and  as  a  result  of  this 
opinion,  Betterton  and  his  followers  received  a 
license  from  the  Crown  to  establish  a  company 
of  comedians  independent  of  the  patent  house. 
Northey  and  Pemberton,  in  1704-05,  sustained 
this  decision;  and  we  have  seen  how  Queen 
Anne  exercised  her  prerogative  to  a  degree  equal 
to  that  of  the  second  Charles  himself, — licens- 
ing Swiney  and  Collier,  silencing  Eich,  and 
even  sanctioning  his  ejection  from  the  Drury 
Lane  Theatre.  George  I  was  no  less  certain  of 
his  power  in  the  matter.  He  granted  a  patent 
to  Steele,  reissued  a  license  to  Cibber,  Doggett, 
and    Wilkes,    permitted    John    Rich    to    open 


SUMMARY  AND  CONCLUSION  423 

Lincoln's-Inn-Fields  Theatre,  prevented  Colley 
Gibber  from  performing,  revoked  Steele's  patent, 
and  disbanded  the  company  of  comedians  at 
Drury  Lane.  Every  one  of  the  four  sovereigns, 
during  this  period  of  fifty  years,  exercised  the 
ci"own  prerogative  over  public  amusements  at 
will,  and  to  its  full  extent,  as  occasion  demanded. 
Furthermore,  with  the  single  exception  of  Sir 
Richard  Steele,  no  question  was  raised  as  to  the 
authority  of  the  Crown  in  theatrical  matters. 

In  1720  it  is  safe  to  say  that  the  English 
King  had  no  doubt  that  he  possessed  the  same 
legal  control  over  the  patents  granted  by  Charles 
II  as  that  which  the  Merrie  Monarch  had  exer- 
cised. So  thoroughly  was  this  fact  established 
that  for  years  no  occasion  arose  demanding  an 
application  of  the  crown  prerogative  over  the 
patent  theatres.  It  seems  to  have  been  an  object 
of  the  three  sovereigns  succeeding  Charles  II  to 
crush  the  spirit  of  exclusive  privileges  in  public 
amusements,  and  to  keep  the  whole  matter  well 
imder  the  control  of  the  Lord  Chamberlain. 
This  thoroughly  accomplished,  that  which  so 
often  happens  under  similar  circumstances  hap- 
pened then:  the  power  fell  into  disuse  as  soon 
as  there  was  no  occasion  for  its  exercise.  In  the 
place  of  it  sprang  up  independent  (that  is,  imll- 
censed)  theatres,  which  were  tolerated  rather 
than  sanctioned  by  Government.    These  were 


424  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

the  Haymarket  and  Goodman's  Fields ;  and 
there  can  be  no  better  proof  that  the  patentees 
regarded  their  patents  inferior  and  subject  to 
the  crown  prerogative  than  the  quiet  submission 
to  this  new  competition.  It  was  only  when  the 
liberty  permitted  to  the  unlicensed  theatres  was 
degraded  into  scurrilous  attacks  on  Government, 
and  insults  to  public  decency  and  morals,  that  a 
readjustment  and  a  redefinition  of  the  theatrical 
situation  was  demanded.  The  Licensing  Act  of 
1737  was  the  result.  As  has  already  been  ex- 
plained, this  aimed  at  a  legal,  i.  e.,  a  parlia- 
mentary, recognition  of  the  authority  of  the 
Crown  over  public  amusements,  as  it  had  been 
practiced  by  Charles  II,  Anne,  and  the  first 
George.  But  in  the  expression  of  what  was  in 
reality  an  established  fact  in  the  common  law, 
namely,  the  absolute  authority  of  the  Crown  over 
theatrical  amusements,  the  Government  com- 
mitted itself  to  a  practical  recognition  of  the 
exclusiveness  of  the  grants  of  Charles  II.  In 
this  consisted  the  real  illiberality  of  the  act, 
though  at  the  time  its  opponents  feared  the 
effects  of  the  absolute  power  secured  to  the  Lord 
Chamberlain.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  it  was  this 
unlimited  power,  sanctioned  by  law,  in  the  hands 
of  the  Lord  Chamberlain,  that  was  to  bring 
about  the  final  abolition  of  the  monopoly.  The 
period,  then,  from  1720  to  1737,  ending  in  the 


SUMMARY  AND   CONCLUSION  425 

passage  of  the  Licensing  Act,  has  two  meanings, 
diametrically  opposed  to  each  other.  Legally  — 
and  in  the  long  run,  in  reality  —  it  emphasized 
the  necessity  and  the  fact  of  the  absolute  au- 
thority of  the  Crown  over  theatricals,  —  such  as 
had  been  exercised  from  1660  to  1720.  In  its 
immediate  effects  it  was  a  violent  reversal  of  the 
policy  maintained  by  the  monarchs  from  Charles 
II  to  George  I,  for  it  gave  a  legal  recognition  — 
the  first  thus  far  —  to  the  patent  theatres,  and 
destroyed  all  other  competition. 

1720  should  have  been  the  natural  end  of  the 
monopoly  granted  by  Charles  II,  but  the  oppor- 
tunity went  by,  and  the  Licensing  Act  did  what 
even  Charles  II  could  not  do, —  it  sealed  the  ex- 
clusive privileges  in  theatricals,  and  laid  the 
foundation  of  an  illiberal  policy  on  the  part  of 
Government,  and  a  century's  struggle  for  a  free 
stage.  The  practices  and  ari-ogant  spirit  of  the 
patentees  after  1737  clearly  show  the  Licensing 
Act  to  be  the  real  birth  of  theatrical  monopoly 
•  in  England. 

From  1737  to  1787,  the  third  period  in  our 
investigation,  the  monopoly  is  distinguished  by 
an  absolutism  scarcely  approached  by  any  other 
period  of  equal  length  during  its  existence.  If 
the  half -century  from  1660  to  1720  marks  the 
constant  buffeting  of  the  patentees  at  the  will  of 
the  Crown,  the  fact  is  offset  by  the  domination 


426  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

of  the  monopoly  over  theatrical  affairs  in  London 
for  the  fifty  years  succeedinj^  the  enactment  of  the 
Licensing  Act.  That  the  Act  of  1737  was  largely 
responsible  for  this  turn  of  affairs  can  be  no 
better  illustrated  than  by  a  comparison  of  the 
revolts  of  1733  and  1743  —  one  before  the  pass- 
age of  the  act  in  question,  the  other  after.  The 
former,  though  led  by  the  disreputable  Theophi- 
lus  Gibber,  was  a  complete  victory  for  the  actors 
over  the  patentees,  as  shown  by  the  decision  in 
the  Harper  case,  which  caused  the  immediate 
ruin  of  the  patentee,  Highmore,  who  was  in  all 
legal  justice  in  the  right.  The  revolt  of  1743 
was  led  by  no  less  respectable  and  influential 
persons  than  Macklin  and  Garrick ;  but  the 
Licensing  Act  was  so  sufficient  a  protection  to 
the  patentee,  Fleetwood,  that  Garrick,  in  the  in- 
terests of  prudence,  was  impelled  to  beat  a  hasty 
retreat,  and  even  the  vindictive  and  indomitable 
Macklin  was  forced  into  ultimate  submission. 
The  pusillanimous  Theophilus  Gibber  was  si- 
lenced wnth  a  threat,  whereas,  ten  years  before, 
he  had  flaunted  his  impudence  with  impunity. 
So  soon  had  been  reversed  the  theatrical  affairs 
of  London,  by  the  interpretation  of  a  law  to 
meet  the  interests  of  private  individuals.  But  it 
should  not  be  lost  sight  of  that  there  was  another 
possible  construction  to  be  placed  on  that  act. 
The  period  from  1737  to  1787  was  one  of  com- 


SUMMARY   AND   CONCLUSION  427 

parative  security  to  the  monopoly,  and  the  one 
during  which  it  was  really  established.  Few 
attempts  were  made  during  this  half-century  to 
perform  the  legitimate  drama  outside  the  two 
patent  theatres,  and  when  such  performances 
were  given  they  were  usually  if  not  always  "  by 
permission  "  of  the  patentees.  While  the  acci- 
dent of  Foote's  patent  at  the  Little  Theatre  in 
the  Haymarket  was,  for  the  moment,  a  return  to 
the  crown  authority,  showing  conclusively  that  the 
power  to  grant  theatrical  patents  was  located 
precisely  where  it  was  in  the  time  of  Charles  II, 
nevertheless  it  should  be  observed  that  in  Foote's 
case  the  patent  was  granted  only  for  the  lifetime 
of  the  patentee,  and  that  it  was  reduced  to  an 
annual  license  when  transferred  to  Column  in 
1777 ;  also  that  the  monopolists  were  first  con- 
sulted before  the  patent  was  granted  to  Foote, 
the  result  of  which  was  that  the  season  at  the 
Haymarket  was  limited  to  the  four  summer 
months.  To  consider  what  might  have  happened 
in  case  the  patentees  had  refused  to  give  their 
consent  to  the  granting  of  Foote's  patent  can 
result  in  nothing  more  than  speculation.  Certain 
it  is,  however,  that  they  saw  the  error  they  had 
fallen  into  in  opening  their  safeguards  to  any 
sort  of  competition,  a  mistake  which  they  tried 
to  rectify  by  inaugurating  the  war  of  encroach- 
ment on  the  season  of  the  summer  theatre. 


428  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

This  third  stage  of  the  history  of  the  patents 
ends  and  the  fourth  begins  with  the  wild  attempt 
of  John  Palmer  to  establish  the  Koyalty  Theatre 
(1787).  This  was  the  first  great  practical  test  of 
the  efficacy  of  the  Licensing  Act  in  defending 
the  interests  of  the  theatrical  monopoly ;  and  we 
have  seen  how  satisfactory  its  operation  was  to 
the  patentees.  This  circumstance  also  brings 
out  the  importance  of  a  new  element  in  theat- 
rical history,  which  was  to  develop  into  greater 
and  greater  prominence  in  the  struggle  against 
the  monopoly — namely,  the  conflict  of  anomalous 
theatrical  legislation  —  the  acts  of  10  George  II 
(Licensing  Act)  and  that  of  25  George  II 
(empowering  magistrates  to  license  musical 
performances,  etc.).  What  the  outcome  of  this 
episode  might  have  been  had  some  one  with  a 
character  and  reputation  less  shadowy  than  that 
of  Palmer  been  at  the  head  of  the  Royalty 
scheme,  or  had  some  one  less  watchful  and 
with  less  political  influence  than  Sheridan  been 
back  of  the  patent  houses,  is  also  a  matter  of 
conjecture ;  but  it  is  probable  that  the  result 
would  have  remained  unchanged,  inasmuch  as 
the  monopoly  had  a  half-century  of  established 
precedent  in  its  favor. 

At  any  rate  the  Royalty  attempt  stands  for 
the  awakening  of  a  tendency  which  dominated 
the  period  from  1787  to  1810  —  the  movement 


SUMMARY   AND   CONCLUSION  429 

for  the  establishment  of  a  third  theatre  for  the 
representation  of  the  national  drama  under  the 
protection  of  Government.  This  movement  had 
its  culmination  in  the  famous  proceedings  be- 
fore the  Privy  Council  in  1810,  on  the  petition 
for  a  third  theatre.  This  climax  was  approached 
by  certain  preliminary  efforts,  such  as  the  at- 
tempts of  Colonel  Greville  from  1802  onwards, 
proposals  for  joint-stock  companies,  and  sub- 
scription theatres  of  various  kinds,  as  well  as 
plans  for  a  national  theatre,  English  opera,  and 
so  forth.  The  attempt  to  establish  a  third  the- 
atre in  London  in  1810  was  the  first  approach  to 
the  breaking  down  of  the  monopoly  by  way  of 
crown  sanction,  just  as  the  efforts  in  Parliament 
in  1811  and  1812  were  the  first  endeavors  to 
reach  the  same  result  by  means  of  legislative 
action.  The  outcome  of  this  attempt  to  establish 
a  third  theatre  seemed  to  fix  more  firmly  than 
ever  the  habit  of  suffering  the  theatrical  mo- 
nopoly. But  it  would  be  rash  to  say  that  the 
findings  of  the  Privy  Council  on  that  occasion, 
and  the  rejection  of  the  bill  by  Parliament  in 
1811  and  1812,  had  the  effect  of  more  firmly 
establishing  the  monopoly  itself.  The  very  op- 
posite is  nearer  the  truth ;  for  in  the  discussions 
and  arguments  which  were  brought  out  at  that 
time,  the  weaknesses  and  questionable  practices 
of  the  patentees  were  laid  bare,  and  "  exclusive 


430  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

privilege  "  in  theatricals  received  a  shock  from 
which  it  never  fully  recovered.  The  proceedings 
in  the  Council  and  in  Parliament  did  show,  how- 
ever, that  the  monopoly  was  not  to  be  destroyed 
by  means  of  any  third  theatre  scheme — a  plan 
which  at  best  could  relieve  the  situation  only 
temporarily.  Furthermore,  had  all  the  most  fa- 
vorable conditions  imaginable  been  ripe  for  such 
a  movement,  it  is  scarcely  likely  that  it  would 
succeed  in  the  King's  Council ;  for  if  the  Crown 
possessed  the  power  to  grant  the  petition  prayed 
for  by  the  third  theatre  promoters,  then  it  is 
altogether  likely  that  the  Crown  would  reserve 
that  power  to  be  exercised  by  its  "own  will 
and  mere  motion,"  as  it  had  done  on  former 
occasions. 

However,  a  set  of  influences  had  long  been 
at  work  undermining  the  monopoly,  and  these 
came  out  into  strong  relief  during  the  period 
from  1810  to  about  1832.  The  conflicting  legis- 
lative acts  regulating  the  theatres  have  already 
been  mentioned.  These  were  aggravated  by  the 
rise  and  development  of  the  minor  theatres, 
those  that  were  prohibited  from  representing 
the  legitimate  national  drama.  These  minor  es- 
tablishments began  to  creep  into  existence  about 
the  outskirts  of  London,  especially  on  the  Sur- 
rey side,  back  in  the  eighteenth  century,  at  the 
very  time  when  the  patent  houses  were  so  secure 


SUMMARY   AND  CONCLUSION  431 

within  the  stronghold  of  the  Licensing  Act. 
These  minors  sprang  up  nnder  the  provisions  of 
the  Act  of  25  George  II,  for  the  licensing  of  music 
houses  and  for  regulating  places  of  public  amuse- 
ment. So  long  as  Government,  represented  by 
Chamberlains  such  as  the  Earl  of  Salisbury, — 
who,  it  should  be  remembered,  served  in  that  ca- 
pacity from  1783  to  1804,  —  was  friendly  to  the 
patent  monopoly,  there  was  little  to  fear  by  the 
latter.  At  such  times  —  which  include  nearly 
three  quarters  of  a  century  after  the  passage 
of  the  Licensing  Act  —  the  laws  were  almost 
invariably  interpreted  as  existing  for  the  protec- 
tion of  the  patent  theatres.  But  so  soon  as  a 
Lord  Chamberlain  should  be  found  sufficiently 
independent  to  shake  himself  free  from  the  iner- 
tia, the  doom  of  the  monopoly  was  struck.  Such 
a  Chamberlain  was  Lord  Dartmouth  ( 1804- 
1812),  who,  though  he  did  not  openly  attack 
the  patent  privileges,  permitted  the  undercur- 
rents already  at  work  to  take  their  course. 

As  a  result,  therefore,  of  this  leniency  of  Lord 
Dartmouth  the  minor  theatres  multiplied  with 
such  rapidity  and  vigor  as  to  become  firmly 
rooted  before  the  end  of  his  reign.  Their  rise  to 
an  important  place  as  a  factor  in  the  struggle 
for  a  free  stage  is  the  main  characteristic  of  the 
period  under  review  (1810-1832).  It  has  been 
pointed  out  at  length  how  the  manipulation  of 


432  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  A  FREE  STAGE 

the  species  of  entertainment  known  as  "burletta" 
(falling  originally  under  the  Act  of  25  George 
II,  permitting  musical  performances)  gradually 
opened  the  door  of  competition  to  the  minors. 
This  process  was  hastened  by  the  lowering  of 
theatrical  representations  at  the  patent  houses, 
so  that  by  1820  there  was  little  difference  be- 
tween the  performances  at  the  best  of  the  minors 
and  the  average  melodramatic  spectacle  at  the 
"  great  houses ;"  while  by  1832  the  minors  were 
as  certainly  established  as  if  there  had  been 
a  special  law  legalizing  their  existence.  Had  a 
Lord  Chamberlain  with  the  views  of  the  Earl  of 
Dartmouth  appeared  in  the  eighteenth  century, 
there  is  reason  to  presume  that  the  struggle 
might  have  been  materially  shortened.  The  pe- 
riod from  1810  to  1832  is  in  many  respects  the 
most  important  in  the  long  history  of  the  patent 
monopoly ;  for  it  was  a  practical  proof  of  the 
weakness  of  a  concern  that  had  to  be  supported 
by  extraneous  means  and  not  by  merit  alone. 

Finally,  the  period  from  1832  to  1843  is  char- 
acterized not  so  much  by  the  destruction  of  the 
theatrical  monopoly  as  by  the  strife  over  the 
method  by  which  it  should  be  silenced.  The  union 
of  the  two  patents  in  1833  was  the  signal  for  attacks 
from  every  quarter  upon  the  two  old  theatrical  con- 
cerns. The  third  theatre  project  was  revived  by 
Knowles  —  but  it  is  safe  to  say  that  that  particu- 


SUMMARY   AND   CONCLUSION  433 

lar  scheme  of  relief  from  the  monopoly  had  been 
finally  disposed  of  in  1810.  Bulwer  had,  the  year 
before  ( 1832  ),  caused  the  practices  of  the  patent- 
ees to  be  scrutinized  in  the  Select  Committee  on 
Dramatic  Literature,  and  it  has  been  shown  how 
this  investigation  was  followed  up  in  1833  by 
the  introduction  of  the  Dramatic  Performances 
Bill.  Why  that  measure  failed  has  already  been 
discussed.  During  all  these  furious  attacks  on 
the  monopoly  the  patentees  were  carrying  on  a 
suicidal  warfare  against  the  minors,  to  whose 
rescue  the  Marquis  of  Conyngham  stepped  in, 
and,  by  his  incessant  zeal  against  the  patent 
houses,  promised  to  end  the  work  begun  by 
Lord  Dartmouth.  For  a  time  it  seemed  that  no 
outside  force  would  be  needed  to  exterminate 
the  monopoly,  for  the  contests  between  the  pat- 
ent houses  themselves  threatened  to  destroy  them 
both ;  while  the  Lenten  prohibitions  were  thrown 
in  to  make  assurance  doubly  sure.  After  the 
noise  of  the  final  conflict  had  ceased,  which  had 
raged  for  the  decade  (1832-1842)  between  the 
monopoly  on  the  one  side,  and  authors,  actors, 
the  minors,  and  the  general  public  on  the  other. 
Parliament  came  in  (1843)  and,  with  an  echo  of 
the  reform  movement,  gave  legislative  sanction 
to  the  verdict  that  the  monopoly  had  died  a 
natural  death. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 

[Note.  —  In  the  following,  no  attempt  is  made  to  give  more 
than  a  list  of  those  titles  which  were  found  most  useful  in  the 
preparation  of  this  work,  and  especially  those  which,  hitherto, 
have  not  been  published  in  connection  with  theatrical  history. 
A  complete  bibliography  of  the  general  subject  is,  probably, 
too  great  a  task  for  one  to  accomplish.  The  most  satisfactory 
compilation  thus  far  is  Mr.  R.  W.  Lowe's  "  A  Bibliographical 
Account  of  English  Theatrical  Literature."  New  York  and 
London,  1888,] 

An  Account  of  the  Proceedings  before  His  Majes- 
ty's Most  Hon.  Privy  Council,  upon  a  Petition  for  a 
Third  Theatre  in  the  Metropolis;  with  the  Arguments  of 
Counsel,  and  Copies  of  all  the  Petitions  and  Documents. 
Pp.  117  -|-  Appendices  A-S.     London,  1810. 

Baker,  David  Erskine. 

Biographia  Dramatica,  or,  A  Companion  to  the  Play- 
house :  containing  Historical  and  Critical  Memoirs, 
and  Original  Anecdotes,  of  British  and  Irish  Dramatic 
Writers,  from  the  commencement  of  our  Theatrical 
Exhibitions  ;  amongst  whom  are  some  of  the  most 
celebrated  Actors.  Also  an  Alphabetical  Account  of 
their  works,  the  Dates  when  printed,  and  occasional 
Observations  on  their  Merits.  Together  with  an  intro- 
ductory View  of  the  Rise  and  Progress  of  the  British 
Stage.  A  New  Edition.  Carefully  corrected;  greatly 
enlarged;  and  continued  from  1764  to  1782.  2  vol- 
umes.    Dublin,  1782. 

Baker,  H.  Barton. 

The  London  Stage:  its  History  and  Traditions  from 
1576  to  1903.   2  volumes.   London,  1904. 

Bedford,  Arthur,  M.A. 

A  Sermon  preached  in  the  Parish  Church  in  St.  Bu- 


438  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

tolph's,  Aldgate,  in  the  City  of  London,  on  Sunday,  the 
Thirtieth  Day  of  November,  in  the  Year  of  Our  Lord 
1729.  Occasioned  by  the  Erecting  of  a  Play-House  in 
the  Neighborhood.   Pp.  40.    London,  1730. 

Besant,  Sir  Walter. 

London  in  the  Eighteenth  Century,    London,  1902. 

Betterton,  Thomas. 
See  Lowe,  R.  W. 

BlOGRAPHIA   DrAMATICA. 

See  Baker,  David  Erskine. 

Bland,  Miss. 
See  Jordan,  Mrs. 

BoADEN,  James. 

Memoirs  of  Mrs.  Siddons.  Interspersed  with  Anec- 
dotes  of   Authors   and  Actors.    2   volumes.    London, 

1827. 

Memoirs  of  John  Philip  Kemble.    London,  1825. 

The  Life  of  Mrs.  Jordan.    London,  1831. 

Private  Correspondence  of  David  Garrick.  London, 
1831-32. 

BouLTON,  William  B. 

The  Amusements  of  Old  London.  Being  a  Survey  of 
the  Sports  and  Pastimes,  Tea  Gardens  and  Parks,  Play- 
houses and  otlier  diversions  of  the  People  of  London 
from  the  17th  to  the  beginning  of  the  19th  century. 
Twelve  colored  illustrations.  2  volumes.  London,  1901. 

BuLWER,  Edward,  Lord  Lytton. 
See  Report  on  Dramatic  Literature. 

BuNN,  Alfred. 

The  Stage.  Both  before  and  behind  the  Curtain.  From 
Observations  taken  on  the  Spot.  3  volumes.  London, 
1840. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  439 

The  Buskin  and  Sock  ;  being  controversial  Letters 
between  Mr.  Thomas  Sheridan,  Tragedian,  and  Mr. 
Theophilus  Gibber,  Comedian;  Just  published  in 
Dublin.    Pp.  56.    London  (reprint),  1743. 

The  Gase  between  the  Managers  of  the  Two  The- 
atres, AND  their  Principal  Actors,  fairly  stated 
and  submitted  to  the  Town.    London,  1743. 

Chetwood,  W.  R. 

A  General  History  of  the  Stage,  from  its  Origin  in 
Greece  down  to  the  Present  Time.  With  the  Memoirs 
of  most  of  the  principal  Performers  that  have  appeared 
on  the  English  and  Irish  Stage  for  these  last  Fifty 
Years.  With  Notes,  Antient,  Modern,  Foreign,  Do- 
mestic, Serious,  Comic,  Moral,  Merry,  Historical,  and 
Geographical,  containing  many  Theatrical  Anecdotes  ; 
also  several  Pieces  of  Poetry  never  before  published. 
Collected  and  Digested  by  W.  R.  Chetwood,  Twenty 
Years  Prompter  to  His  Majesty's  Company  of  Come- 
dians at  the  Theatre-Royal  in  Drury-Lane,  Loudon. 
London,  1749. 

Gibber,  Colley. 

An  Apology  for  the  Life  of  Colley  Gibber,  Comedian, 
and  late  Patentee  of  the  Theatre-Royal.  With  an 
Historical  View  of  the  Stage  during  his  Own  Time, 
Written  by  Himself.  The  Third  Edition.  To  which  is 
now  added,  A  Short  Account  of  the  Rise  and  Progress 
of  the  English  Stage:  Also,  A  Dialogue  on  Old  Plays, 
and  Old  Players.   London,  1750. 

Gibber,  Susannah  Maria. 

An  Account  of  the  Life  of  the  Celebrated  Mrs.  Susan- 
nah Maria  Gibber,  with  interesting  and  amusing  An- 
ecdotes. Also  the  two  remarkable  and  romantic  Trials 
between  Theophilus  Gibber  and  William  Sloper. 
London,  1887. 

Gibber,  Theophilus. 

An  Apology  for  the  Life  of  Mr.  T —  G — ,  Comedian. 


440  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Being  a  Proper  Sequel  to  the  Apology  for  the  Life  of 
Mr.  CoUey  Gibber,  Comedian.  With  an  Historical 
View  of  the  Stage  to  the  Present  Year.  Supposed  to 
be  written  by  Himself.  In  the  Stile  and  Manner  of  the 
Poet  Laureat.    London,  1740. 

See  The  Buskin  and  Sock. 

A  Lick  at   a  Liar  ;  or,  Calumny  Detected.    Being  an 

Occasional  Letter  to  a  Friend  from  Theophilus  Cibber, 

Comedian.    Pp.  23.    With  an  Advertisement.    London, 

1752. 

A  Serio-Gomic  Apology  for  Part  of  the  Life  of  Mr. 
Theophilus  Cibber,  Comedian.  Written  by  Himself. 
In  which  is  contained,  A  Prologue,  an  Epilogue,  and 
a  Poem,  wrote  on  the  Play  of  Romeo  and  Juliet  being 
first  revived  in  1744;  Also  some  Addresses  to  the  Pub- 
lick,  on  different  Occasions;  Likewise  original  Letters 
that  passed  between  the  late  Sir  Thomas  De  Veil,  and 
Mr.  Theo.  Cibber,  (Relating  to  the  Stage  Act)  On  a 
stop  being  put  to  the  playing  at  the  Haymarket.  Inter- 
spersed with  Memoirs  and  Anecdotes  concerning  the 
Stage  Management  and  Theatrical  Revolutions,  in  the 
Years  1744,  1745,  and  1746,  &c.  And  cursory  Obser- 
vations on  some  Principal  Performers;  Particularly 
Mr.  Quin,  Mr.  Ryan,  Mr.  Delane,  Mrs.  Woffington, 
Mrs.  Ward,  and  Miss  Bellamy;  Mr.  Garrick,  Mr.  Barry, 
Mrs.  Cibber,  Mrs.  Clive,  Mrs.  Pritchard,  and  others. 
Pp.  71-108.    n.  p.,  n.  d.,  [London,  1746J. 

CoLMAN,  George,  The  Younger. 

Random  Records.   2  volumes.   London,  1830. 

The  Conduct  of  the  Stage  considered.  Being  a 
short  Historical  Account  of  its  Origin,  Progress,  vari- 
ous Aspects  and  Treatment  in  the  Pagan,  Jewish,  and 
Christian  World.  Together  with  the  Arguments  urg'd 
against  it,  by  Learned  Heathens,  and  by  Christians, 
both  Antient  and  Modern.  With  short  Remarks  upon 
the  Origin  and  pernicious  Consequences  of  Masquer- 
ades.  Pp.  43.   London,  1721. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  441 

Considerations  on  the  Past  and  Present  State  of 
THE  Stage  ;  with  Reference  to  the  late  Contests  at 
Covent  Garden  ;  to  which  is  added  a  Plan  for  a  new 
Theatre  for  the  purpose  of  HEARING  Plays.  To  the 
Right  Honourable  George,  Earl  of  Dartmouth,  Lord 
Chamberlain  of  His  Majesty's  Household.  Pp.  54  -|- 
Appendices  A  and  B.    Loudon,  1809. 

Cooke,  William. 

Memoirs  of  Charles  Macklin,  Comedian,  with  the 
Dramatic  Characters,  Manners,  Anecdotes,  &c.,  of  the 
Age  in  which  he  lived:  forming  an  History  of  the  Stage 
during  almost  the  Whole  of  the  last  Century.  And 
a  Chronological  List  of  all  the  Parts  played  by  Him. 
2d  edition.    London,  1806. 

See  Foote,  Samuel. 

The  Covent  Garden  Journal.  Compiled  by  John 
Joseph  Stockdale.    2  volumes.   London,  1810. 

Cumberland,  Richard. 

Memoirs  of  Richard  Cumberland.  Written  by  himself. 
New  York,  1806. 

The  Minor  Theatre.  16  volumes.  London,  n.  d.  Con- 
tains copies  of  the  plays  which  were  acted  at  the 
minor  theatres  iu  London. 

Da  vies,  Thomas. 

Memoirs  of  the  Life  of  David  Garrick,  Esq.  Inter- 
spersed with  Characters  and  Anecdotes  of  his  Theat- 
rical Contemporaries.  The  Whole  forming  a  History 
of  the  Stage,  which  includes  a  Period  of  Thirty-Six 
Years.  From  the  last  London  edition.  Boston,  1818. 
The  Dedication  bears  date  of  April  22,  1780. 

Dialogues  on  the  Drama,  between  "  Smith  and  John- 
son." In  "Morning  Chronicle,"  beginning  September 
22,  1830.   . 

Dibdin,  Mr.  [Charles.] 

A  Complete  History  of  the  Stage.  5  volumes.  London, 
[1800.] 


442  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

DiBDiN,  Charles,  Jr. 

History  and  Illustrations  of  the  London  Theatres  : 
comprising  an  account  of  the  Origin  and  Progress  of 
the  Drama  in  England  ;  with  historical  and  descriptive 
accounts  of  the  Theatres  Royal,  Covent  Garden,  Drury 
Lane,  Haymarket,  English  Opera  House,  and  Royal 
Amphitheatre.    London,  1826. 

DiBDiN,  Thomas. 

The  Reminiscences  of  Thomas  Dibdin^  of  the  Theatres 
Royal,  Covent  Garden,  Drury  Lane,  Haymarket,  &c., 
and  Author  of  the  Cabinet,  &c.    London,  1827. 

Dickens,  Charles. 

See  Mathews,  Charles  James. 

Doran,  Dr.  [John.] 

Annals  of  the  English  Stage,  from  Thomas  Betterton 
to  Edmund  Keau.  Actors  —  Authors  —  Audiences. 
2  volumes.   New  York,  1865. 

DowNEs,  John. 

Roscius  Anglicanus,  or,  an  Historical  Review  of  the 
Stage  from  1660  to  1706.  A  Fac-simile  Reprint  of  the 
Rare  Original  of  1708.  With  an  Historical  Preface  by 
Joseph  Knight.    London,  1886. 

"  Dramaticus." 

An  impartial  View  of  the  Stage,  from  the  days  of 
Garrick  and  Rich  to  the  Present  Period  ;  of  the 
Causes  of  its  degenerated  and  declining  State,  and 
shewing  the  necessity  of  a  Reform  in  the  System,  as 
the  only  means  of  giving  stability  to  the  present  Prop- 
erty of  the  two  Winter  Theatres.  London,  1816. 

Ebers,  John. 

Seven  Years  of  the  King's  Theatre.    London,  1828. 

Egan,  Pierce. 

Life  in  London.  Illustrated  by  colored  Drawings  by 
George  Cruikshank.    London,  1821. 

Life   of  an  Actor.     The  Poetical   Descriptions  by  T. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  443 

Greenwood.  Embellished  with  Twenty-Seven  Charac- 
teristic Scenes,  etched  by  Theodore  Lane.  London, 
1892.  The  Dedication  (to  E.  Kean)  bears  date  of 
December  18,  1824. 

Ellistox,  Robert  William. 
See  Raymond,  George. 

Farren,  William. 

A  Full  and  Accurate  Account  of  the  Destruction  of  the 
Brunswick  Theatre,  with  the  Statements  of  .  .  .  Wil- 
liam and  Percy  Farren.     London,  1828. 

Fitzgerald,  Percy. 

A  New  History  of  the  English  Stage,  from  the  Restora- 
tion to  the  Liberty  of  the  Theatres,  in  Connection  with 
the  Patent  Houses.  From  Original  Papers  in  the  Lord 
Chamberlain's  Office,  the  State  Paper  Office,  and  other 
Sources.    2  volumes.    London,  1882. 

FoOTE,  Samuel. 

Memoirs  of  the  Life  and  Writings  of  Samuel  Foote 
Esq.  ;  the  English  Aristophanes  :  to  which  are  added 
the  bon-mots,  repartees,  and  good  things  said  by  that 
great  wit  and  excentrical  genius.    London,  n.  d.  [1777.] 

Memoirs  of  Samuel  Foote.  With  a  Collection  of  his 
genuine  Bon-mots,  Anecdotes,  Opinions,  &c.,  mostly 
original.  And  three  dramatic  pieces,  not  published  in 
his  works.    By  William  Cooke,  Esq.    London,  1805. 

Garrick,  David. 

Mr.  Garrick's  Answer  to  Mr.  Macklin's  Case.  [Lon- 
don, 1743.] 

Memoirs  of  the  Life  of  David  Garrick.  See  Boaden, 
James  ;  Davies,  Thomas  ;  Knight,  Joseph. 

Genest,  John. 

Some  Account  of  the  English  Stage  from  the  Restora- 
tion in  1660  to  1830.    10  volumes,  Bath,  1832. 

GiLDON,  Charles. 

A  Comparison  between  the  Two  Stages,  with  an  Ex- 


4M  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

amen  of  the  Generous  Conqueror ;  and  some  Critical 
Remarks  on  The  Funeral,  or  Grief  Alamode,  The  False 
Friend,  Tamerlane^  and  others.  In  Dialogue.  London, 
1702. 

Hawkins,  F.  W. 
See  Kean,  Edmund. 

Hazlitt,  William. 

A  View  of  the  English  Stage  ;  or,  a  Series  of  Dra- 
matic Criticisms.    London,  1818. 

Hill,  Aaron. 

See  Newspapers  and  Periodicals,  "  The  Prompter." 

Howard,  Frederick,  Earl  of  Carlisle. 

Thoughts  upon  the  Present  Condition  of  the  Stage,  and 
upon  the  Construction  of  a  New  Theatre.  A  new  edi- 
tion, with  additions.  Pp.  47  -f-  Appendix.  London, 
1809. 

Hunt,  John. 

Critical  Essays  on  the  Performers  of  the  London  The- 
atres ;  including  General  Observations  on  the  Practice 
and  Genius  of  the  Stage.  By  the  Author  of  the  The- 
atrical Criticisms  in  the  weekly  paper  called  the  News. 
London,  1809. 

An  Impartial  Examen  of  the  Present  Contests  be- 
tween THE  Town  and  the  Manager  of  the  The- 
atre. With  some  Proposals  for  accommodating  the 
present  Misunderstanding  between  the  Town  and  Man- 
ager. Offered  to  the  Consideration  of  Both  Parties. 
By  Mr.  Neither-side.     Pp.  24.     London,  1744. 

The  Intelligencer. 

(A  collection  of  19  pamphlets.  No.  3  is  "  A  "Vindica- 
tion of  Mr.  Gay,  and  the  Beggar's  Opera.")  London, 
1729.     (Printed  in  Dublin.) 

Jackman,  Isaac. 

Royal  and  Royalty  Theatres.     London,  1787. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  445 

Jackson,  Randle. 

See  An  Account  of  the  Proceedings  before  His  Majesty's 
most  Hon.  Privy  Council,  etc. 

Jordan,  Mrs. 

Public  and  Private  Life  of  that  Celebrated  Actress, 
Miss  Bland,  Otherwise  Mrs.  Ford,  or,  Mrs.  Jordan ; 
Late  mistress  of  H.  R.  H.,  the  D.  of  Clarence  ;  now 
King  William  IV,  founder  of  the  Fitzclarence  Family  ; 
Delineating  the  Vicissitudes  attending  on  her  Early 
Life  ;  The  Splendour  of  her  noon-tide  Blaze,  as  Mis- 
tress of  the  Royal  Duke  ;  and  her  untimely  Dissolu- 
tion at  St.  Cloud,  near  Paris,  resulting  from  a  broken 
Heart.  Accompanied  by  numerous  Remarks  and  An- 
ecdotes of  illustrious  and  fashionable  Characters. 
By  a  confidential  Friend  of  the  Departed.    London,  n.  d. 

Kean,  Edmund. 

The  Life  of  Edmund  Kean.  From  Published  and 
Original  Sources.  By  F.  W.  Hawkins.  2  volumes. 
London,  1869. 

The  Life  of  Edmund  Kean,  English  Tragedian  ;  with 
Critical  Remarks  on  his  Theatrical  Performances.  By 
Sheridan  Knowles,  Esq.     London,  1833. 

Kemble,  John  Philip. 
See  Boaden,  James. 

KiRKMAN,  James  Thomas. 

Memoirs  of  the  Life  of  Charles  Macklin,  Esq.  ;  princi- 
pally compiled  from  his  own  Papers  and  Memoran- 
dums ;  which  contains  his  Criticisms  on  and  Characters 
and  Anecdotes  of  Betterton,  Booth,  Wilks,  Cibber, 
Garrick,  Barry,  Mossop,  Sheridan,  Foote,  Quin,  and 
most  of  his  Contemporaries.  2  volumes.  London,  1799. 

Knight,  Joseph. 

David  Garrick.  With  etched  Portrait  from  the  Gains- 
borough Painting.     London,  1894. 

See  Downes,  John. 

Knowles,  James  Sheridan. 

See  Knowles,  Richard  Brinsley  ;  and  Kean,  Edmund. 


446  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Knowles,  Richard  Brinsley. 

The  Life  of  James  Sheridan  Knowles,  by  his  son  Rich- 
ard Brinsley  Knowles.  Privately  printed  for  James 
McHenry.     London,  1872. 

Lawrence,  James,  Knight  of  Malta. 

Dramatic  Emancipation,  or  Strictures  on  the  State  of 
the  Theatres,  and  the  consequent  Degeneration  of  the 
Drama  ;  On  the  Partiality  and  Injustice  of  the  London 
Managers  ;  On  Many  Theatrical  Regulations  ;  And  on 
the  Regulations  on  the  Continent  for  the  Security  of 
Literary  and  Dramatic  Property.  Particularly  Deserv- 
ing the  Attention  of  the  Subscribers  for  a  Third  The- 
atre. Original,  1813.  (Printed  in  the  "  Pamphleteer  " 
for  December,  1813,  ii,  370-395.) 

Lowe,  R.  W. 

Thomas  Betterton.     London,  1891. 

Macarthy,  Eugene. 

A  Letter  to  the  King,  on  the  Question  now  at  issue  be- 
tween the  Major  and  Minor  Theatres.     London,  1832. 

Macklin,  Charles. 

See  Cooke,  William  ;  and  Kirkman,  James  Thomas. 
Reply  to  Mr.  Garrick's  Answer.     To  which  is  prefix'd, 
All  the  Papers,  which  have  publickly  appeared,  in  re- 
gard to  this  Important  Dispute.  Pp.  36.    London,  1743. 

Macready,  Willlam  Charles. 

Macready's  Reminiscences,  and  Selections  from  his 
Diaries  and  Letters.  Edited  by  Sir  Frederick  Pol- 
lock.    New  York,  1875. 

Ma  LONE,  Edmond. 

An  Historical  Account  of  the  English  Stage.  (In  Vol. 
I  of  "  The  Plays  and  Poems  of  William  Shakespeare.") 
London,  1790. 

Mathews,  Charles  James. 

The  Life  of  Charles  James  Mathews.  Chiefly  Auto- 
biographical, with  Selections  from  his  Correspondence 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  447 

and  Speeches.  Edited  by  Charles  Dickens.  With 
Portrait.     2  volumes.     London,  1879. 

The  National  Drama,  or  the  Histrionic  War  of  Majors 
and  Minors.  With  folding  caricature  Frontispiece. 
London,  1833. 

Newspapers  and  Periodicals. 
See  post,  p.  452. 

O'Keefe,  John. 

Recollections  of  the  Life  of  John  O'Keefe.  Written  by 
himself.     2  volumes.     London,  1826. 

OULTON,  W.  C. 

A  History  of  the  Theatres  of  London,  containing  an 
Annual  Register  of  New  Pieces,  Revivals,  Pantomimes, 
&c.  With  Occasional  Notes  and  Anecdotes.  Being  a 
Continuation  of  Victor's  &  Oulton's  Histories.  From 
the  Year  1795  to  1817  inclusive.  3  volumes.  London, 
1818. 

History  of  the  Theatres  of  London  :  containing  an  An- 
nual Register  of  all  the  new  and  revived  Tragedies, 
Comedies,  Operas,  Farces,  Pantomimes,  &c.,  that  has 
been  performed  at  the  Theatres-Royal,  in  London 
from  the  Year  1771  to  1795.  With  occasional  Notes 
and  Anecdotes.     2  volumes.     London,  1796. 

Pepys,  Samuel. 

Diary.  January  1, 1660-May  31, 1669.  First  edited  by 
Lord  Braybrooke,  1825. 

Place,  Francis. 

A  Brief  Examination  of  the  Dramatic  Patents.  (Ex- 
tracted from  the  "  Monthly  Magazine  "  for  March, 
1834.)  London,  1834. 

Pollock,  Sir  Frederick. 

See  Macready,  William  Charles. 

The  Present  State  of  the  Stage  in  Great  Britain 
and  Ireland,  and   the    theatrical   Character   of   the 


448  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

principal  Performers  in  both  Kingdoms,  impartially 
considered.  Pp.  55.     London,  1753. 

A  Proposal  for  the  Better  Regulation  of  the 
Stage,  with  some  Remarks  on  the  State  of  the  Theatre 
among  the  Antient  Greeks  and  Romans.  (Dedicated 
to  "The  Managers  of  Both  Houses.")     London,  1732. 

QuiN,  James. 

The  Life  of  Mr.  James  Quin  Considered.  With  the  his- 
tory of  the  Stage  from  his  commencing  actor  to  his  retreat 
to  Bath.  Illustrated  with  many  curious  and  interest- 
ing anecdotes  of  several  persons  of  distinction,  litera- 
ture, and  gallantry.  To  which  is  added  a  supplement 
of  original  facts  and  anecdotes,  arranged  from  authen- 
tic sources.  Together  with  his  trial  for  the  murder  of 
Mr.  Bowen.  (A  reprint  from  the  edition  of  1766.) 
London,  1887. 

Ralph,  J. 

The  Case  of  our  Present  Theatrical  Disputes,  Fairly 
Stated.  In  which  is  contained,  a  succinct  Account  of 
the  Rise,  Progress,  and  Declension  of  the  Antient 
Stage  ;  A  Comprehensive  View  of  the  Management  of 
the  Italian,  Spanish,  French,  and  Dutch  Theatres,  with 
some  free  Remarks  upon  our  own.  Pp.  64.  London, 
1743. 

Raymond,  George. 

The  Life  and  Enterprises  of  Robert  William  Elliston, 
Comedian.  Illustrated  by  George  Cruikshank  and 
"  Phiz."  (Portrait  of  Elliston,  and  5  full-page  illustra- 
tions.)    London,  1857. 

Report  on  Dramatic  Literature,  with  the  minutes  of 
the  evidence.     Folded  sheet.    Pp.  250.   London,  1832. 

A  Review  of  the  Present  Contest  between  the 
Managers  of  the  Winter  Theatres,  the  Little 
Theatre  in  the  Haymarket,  and  the  Royalty 
Theatre  in  Well-Close  Square.  To  which  are 
added  several  authentic  papers.     London,  1787. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  449 

Reynolds,  Frederick. 

The  Life  and  Times  of  Frederick  Reynolds.  Written 
by  himself.     2  volumes.     London,  1826. 

Sheridan,  Richard  Brinsley. 

See  Account  of  Proceedings  before  .  .  .  Privy  Council, 
1810. 

Sheridan,  Thomas. 
See  Buskin  and  Sock. 

SiDDONs,  Mrs. 

Memoirs  of  Mrs.  Siddons.  By  James  Boaden.  2  vol- 
umes.    London,  1827. 

Steele,  Sir  Richard. 

The  State  of  the  Case  between  the  Lord  Chamberlain 
of  His  Majesty's  Household  and  the  Governor  of  the 
Royal  Company  of  Comedians.  With  Opinions  of 
Pemberton,  Northey,  and  Parker,  concerning  the  The- 
atre.   Pp.  31.    London,  1720. 

The  State  of  the  Case  between  the  Lord  Chamberlain 
of  His  Majesty's  Household,  and  Sir  Richard  Steele, 
as  represented  by  that  Knight,  Restated,  In  Vindication 
of  King  George,  and  the  most  noble  the  Duke  of  New- 
castle. With  a  true  Copy  of  King  Charles's  Patent,  to 
Sir  William  D'Avenant,  for  erecting  a  Play-house,  &c. 
London,  1720. 

Sterling,  Edward. 

Old  Drury  Lane.  Fifty  Years  Recollections  of  Author, 
Actor,  and  Manager.     2  volumes.     London,  1881. 

Stockdale,  John  Joseph. 
See  Covent  Garden  Journal. 

Taylor,  W. 

A  Concise  Statement  of  Transactions  and  Circum- 
stances Respecting  the  King's  Theatre  in  the  Haymar- 
ket.  By  Mr.  Taylor,  the  Proprietor.  Together  with 
the  Official  Correspondence  upon  the  same  Subject  be- 
tween the  Rt.  Hon.  The  Lord  Chamberlain  and  Earl 
Cholmondeley,  &c.     Pp.  46.     London,  1791. 


450  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Theatrical  Biography  :  or,  Memoirs  of  the  Principal 
Actors  of  the  Three  Theatres  Royal,  Drury  Lane,  Co- 
vent  Garden,  Haymarket.     2  volumes.     London,  1772. 

Theatrical  Correspondence  in  Death.  An  Epistle 
from  Mrs.  Oldfield,  in  the  Shades,  to  Mrs.  Br — ceg — 
die,  upon  Earth  ;  containing,  A  Dialogue  between  the 
most  Eminent  Players  in  the  Shades,  Upon  the  Late 
Stage  Desertion.     Pp.  24.     London,  1743. 

Theatrical  Monopoly  :  being  an  Address  to  the  Pub- 
lic on  the  alarming  Coalition  of  the  Managers  of  the 
Winter  Theatres.     London,  1779. 

Third  Theatre. 

See  An  Account  of  the  Proceedings  before  .  .  .  the 
Privy  Council,  1810. 

Thornbury,  Walter. 

London  Theatres  and  London  Actors.  In  "Belgravia," 
January,  1869-February,  1870. 

TOMLINS,  F.  G. 

A  Brief  View  of  the  English  Drama,  from  the  earliest 
Period  to  the  Present  Time  ;  with  Suggestions  for  alle- 
viating the  present  Condition  of  the  Art  and  its  Pro- 
fessors.    London,  1840. 

Major  and  Minor  Theatres.  A  concise  View  of  the 
Question,  as  regards  the  Public,  the  Patentees,  and  the 
Profession,  with  Remarks  on  the  Decline  of  the  Drama, 
and  the  means  of  its  Restoration.  To  which  is  added 
the  Petition  now  lying  for  signature.  By  one  of  the 
Public.     London,  1832. 

Past  and  Present  State  OF  Dramatic  Art  and  Lit- 
erature.    2d  edition,  London,  1839. 

A  Very  Plain  State  of  the  Case  ;  or,  The  Royalty 
Theatre  Versus  The  Theatre  Royal.  (In  refutation 
of  "A  Review  of  the  Present  Contest,  etc.,"  q.v.  At- 
tributed to  George  Colman,  the  Younger.)  London, 
1787. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  451 

Vestris,  Madame. 

Memoirs  of  the  Life,  Public  and  Private  Adventures,  of 
Madame  Vestris  :  of  the  Theatre  Royal,  Drury  Lane, 
Covent  Garden,  Olympic  and  Haymarket,  with  inter- 
esting and  amusing  Anecdotes  of  celebrated  Characters 
in  the  fashionable  World,  detailing  an  interesting  vari- 
ety of  singularly  curious  and  amusing  Scenes,  as  per- 
formed before  and  behind  the  Curtain.  To  which  is 
added  the  amorous  Confessions  of  Madame  Vestris, 
carefully  selected  by  Charles  Mallory  W — m — e,  Esq., 
from  a  series  of  Letters  written  by  Madame  to  Hand- 
some Jack,  in  which  will  be  found  most  curious  Anec- 
dotes of  many  eminent  roues  and  debauchees  of  the 
day  ;  with  various  others  of  public  notoriety.  London, 
1839. 

Victor,  Benjamin. 

The  History  of  the  Theatres  of  London  and  Dublin. 
From  the  Year  1730  to  the  Present  Time.  To  which  is 
added  an  Annual  Register  of  all  the  Plays,  &c.,  per- 
formed at  the  Theatres-Royal  in  London,  from  the  Year 
1712.  With  Occasional  Notes  and  Anecdotes.  By 
Mr.  Victor,  Late  one  of  the  Managers  of  the  Theatre- 
Royal  in  Dublin.     2  volumes.     London,  1761. 

The  History  of  the  Theatres  of  London  and  Dublin, 
&c.  Being  a  Continuation  of  the  Annual  Register  of 
the  new  Tragedies,  Comedies,  Farces,  Pantomimes,  &c., 
that  have  been  performed  from  the  Year  1760  to  the 
Present  Time.     London,  1771. 

Waters,  E. 

The  Opera  Glass :  exhibiting  all  the  curious  proceed- 
ings of  the  King's  Theatre  ;  together  with  the  original 
letters  and  papers,  which  have  passed  between  the 
present  proprietors,  since  the  death  of  Francis  Goold, 
Esq.,  joint  proprietor  with  Mr.  Taylor  in  the  above 
.property.     London,  1808. 

A  Statement  of  Matters,  Relative  to  the  King's  Theatre. 
Pp.  27.     Loudon,  1818. 


452  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Williams,  J.  M. 

See  Newspapers  and  Periodicals,  "  Dramatic  Censor." 

Williams,  Michael. 

Some  London  Theatres,  Past  and  Present.  (A  com- 
pilation from  magazine  articles.)     London,  1883. 

Wright,  James. 

Historia  Histrionica.  A  Dialogue  of  Old  Plays  and  Old 
Players.  (In  Dodsley's  Collection  of  Old  Plays.) 
London,  1699. 

Wroth,  Warwick,  assisted  by  Arthur  Edgar  Wroth. 

The  London  Pleasure  Gardens  of  the  18th  Century. 

London  and  New  York,  1896. 
Wyndhajvi,  Henry  Saxe. 

Annals  of  Covent  Garden  Theatre.     London,  1906. 

NEWSPAPERS  AND   PERIODICALS 

The  Annual  Register,  or  a  View  of  the  History,  Poli- 
ticks, and  Literature  for  the  Year  (1758-  ).  The  An- 
nual Register  was  commenced  by  R.  Dodsley,  and  con- 
tinued by  his  house  down  to  1790,  when  the  stock  and 
copyright  were  sold.  Since  then,  it  has  appeared  in 
numerous  editions  and  with  the  imprint  of  various  pub- 
lishers. Some  of  these  editions  are  made  up  from  all 
the  preceding  editions.  The  seventh  edition,  together 
with  the  New  Series,  which  began  in  1863,  is  complete 
and  continuous.  Since  1838  the  word  "  Literature  " 
has  not  appeared  in  the  title,  and  in  1863  the  sub-title 
was  changed  to  "  A  Review  of  Public  Events  at  Home 
and  Abroad."  Since  1790  the  Annual  Register  has 
been  published  simultaneously  from  the  houses  of  the 
various  owners  of  the  stock. 

Belgravia,  a  London  Magazine.  London,  November, 
1866-         .     In  progress. 

The  Britannic  Magazine  ;  or,  Entertaining  Repository 
of  Heroic  Adventures.  12  volumes.  London,  1793- 
1807. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  453 

The  British  Magazine  and  Review  :  or,  Universal 
Miscellany  of  Arts,  Sciences,  Literature,  History, 
Biography,  Entertainment,  Poetry,  Politics,  Manners, 
Amusements,  and  Intelligence  Foreign  and  Domestic. 
London,  July,  1782-December,  1783. 

The  Cabinet  ;  or.  Monthly  Report  of  Polite  Literature. 
6  volumes,  with  42  plates.     London,  1807-1808. 

The  Country  Journal  ;  or.  The  Craftsman.  By 
Caleb  D'Anvers,  of  Gray's-Inn,  Esq.  14  volumes. 
London.  Weekly.  Original  dates,  December  5,  1726- 
April  17,  1736.     See  Gray's-Inn  Journal. 

The  Country  Literary  Chronicle  and  Weekly  Re- 
view.    See  Literary  Chronicle. 

The  Craftsman.     See  The  Country  Journal. 

The  Daily  Courant.  7  fol,  volumes.  No.  1,  March 
11,  1702.  Flourished  for  over  thirty  years.  I'he  first 
London  daily. 

The  Daily  Universal  Register.     See  The  Times. 

The  Dramatic  Censor  ;  or,  critical  and  biographical  il- 
lustration of  the  British  Stage.  For  the  Year  1811. 
Involving  a  correct  register  of  every  night's  perform- 
ances at  our  Metropolitan  theatres,  and  published  with 
a  view  to  sustain  the  morality  and  dignity  of  the 
drama.  Edited  by  J.  M.  Williams,  LL.D.  1  volume. 
Columns  1^93.     London,  1812. 

The  Dramatic  Censor  :  or.  Critical  Companion.  2 
volumes.     London,  1770. 

The  Dramatic  Censor  ;  or,  Weekly  Theatrical  Report. 
Comprising  a  Complete  Chronicle  of  the  British  Stage, 
and  a  Regular  Series  of  Theatrical  Criticisms,  in  every 
Part  of  the  Drama.  By  Thomas  Dutton,  A.M.  2 
volumes,  26  numbers.  London,  January  4-June  28, 
1800.  Two  mora  volumes  were  added  in  1801,  when 
the  title  was  changed  to  "  The  Dramatic  Censor  ;  or, 
Monthly  Epitome  of  Taste,  Fashion,  and  Manners." 


454  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Thk  Edinburgh  Literary  Journal  ;  or,  Weekly  Reg- 
ister of  Criticism  and  Belles  Lettres.  6  volumes. 
Edinburgh,  November  15,  1828-January  14,  1832. 

The  Edinburgh  Spectator,  A  Journal  of  Literature 
and  the  Fine  Arts.  Semi-weekly.  10  numbers.  Edin- 
burgh, February  15-April  7,  1832. 

The  Examiner  :  A  Sunday  paper,  on  politics,  domestic 
economy,  and  theatricals.  London,  1808-1836.  4to 
down  to  1830,  fol.  since  1830. 

The  European  Magazine  and  London  Review.  By 
the  Philological  Society  of  London.  87  volumes.  Lon- 
don, 1782-1825.  After  vol.  50,  "  Philological  Society  " 
does  not  appear  on  title-page.  In  September,  1825,  a 
New  Series  was  commenced  and  continued  to  July, 
1826,  when  The  European  Magazine  was  united  with 
The  Monthly  Magazine,  q.  v. 

Fog's  Weekly  Journal.  London,  September  28, 1728- 
January  1,  1732.  Fog's  Journal  was  a  continuation  of 
Mist's  Weekly  Journal  (q.  v.),  a  Tory  paper,  started  in 
1716,  in  opposition  to  Read's  Weekly  Journal,  which 
was  conducted  in  the  interests  of  the  Whigs.  Defoe 
was  connected  with  Mist's  Journal  for  a  number  of 
years. 

Eraser's  Literary  Chronicle,  and  Register  of  British 
and  Foreign  Literature,  Science  and  the  Fine  Arts. 
Complete  in  One  Volume.  Containing  Reviews  of  New 
Books,  together  with  various  original  Articles,  Poetry, 
the  Drama,  Fine  Arts,  &c.,  &c.,  &c.  Weekly.  London, 
December  5,  1835-May  28,  1836. 

Fraser's  Magazine  for  Town  and  Country.  Monthly, 
80  volumes.  London,  1830-1869.  New  Series,  volumes 
1-26,  1870-1882. 

The  General  Magazine  and  Impartial  Review.  In- 
cluding a  History  of  the  present  times,  and  an  account 
of  new  Publications,  interspersed  with  original  and  se- 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  455 

lected  Tales,  Essays,  Biography,  Poetry,  &c.,  &c.,  &c., 
with  a  Monthly  Chronicle  of  Events.  London,  June, 
1787-December,  1792. 

The  Gentleman's  Magazine  ;  or.  Monthly  Intelli- 
gencer.    Vol.  I,  No.  1,  January,  1731.     In  progress. 

Gold's  London  Magazine,  See  The  Theatrical  In- 
quisitor. 

Gkay's-Inn  Journal.  By  A.  Murphy.  Weekly.  Lon- 
don, September  29,  1753-September  21,  1754.  From 
a  manuscript  note  prefixed  to  the  copy  in  the  British 
Museum  we  learn  that  "  This  volume  contains  the  last 
62  numbers  of  the  Grai/s-Inn  Journal,  all  that  were 
printed  in  this  size.  The  preceding  numbers  were  pub- 
lished in  The  Craftsman." 

Grub-Street  Journal.  Weekly.  400  numbers  in  2 
volumes.  London,  January  8,  1730-August  25,  1737. 
The  Grub-Street  Journal  was  started  by  a  Non-Juring 
clergyman  by  the  name  of  Russel.  In  1737  it  became 
The  Literary  Courier,  under  which  title  it  had  a  long 
career. 

The  Lady's  Magazine  ;  or.  Entertaining  Companion  for 
the  Fair  Sex.  Appropriated  solely  to  their  Use  and 
Amusement.  Monthly.  50  volumes.  London,  Au- 
gust, 1770-December,  1819.  New  Series,  10  volumes, 
January,  1820-December,  1829.  See  Lady's  Monthly 
Museum. 

The  Lady's  Monthly  Museum  ;  or.  Polite  Repository 
of  Amusement  and  Instruction  ;  being  an  assemblage 
of  whatever  can  attend  to  please  the  fancy,  interest  the 
mind,  or  exalt  the  character,  of  the  British  Fair.  Lon- 
don, July,  1798-June,  1806.  New  Series,  1807-1811. 
Continued  as 

The  Ladies'  Monthly  Museum,  etc.  Improved  Se- 
ries.   1817-1828. 

Continued  as 
The  Ladies'  Museum,  1829,  1830.    New  and  Improved 


456  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Series,    1831,   1832.     Incorporated    with   The    Lady's 
Magazine,  (q.  v.),  1832,  and 

Continued  as 
The  Lady's  Magazine  and  Museum  of  Belles  Let- 
TREs.     Improved  Series,  enlarged,  1832-1837.    United 
with  The  Court  Magazine  and  Monthly  Critic  and 

Continued  as 
The  Court  Magazine  and  Monthly  Critic,  and  La- 
dies' Magazine  and  Museum  of  the  Belles  Let- 
tres.  London,  1838-1847.  Volume  27  of  The  Court 
Magazine  contains  a  statement  that  The  Ladies'  Maga- 
zine was  first  published  in  1756. 

The  Literary  Chronicle  and  Weekly  Review  : 
Forming  an  Analysis  and  General  Repository  of  Litera- 
ture, Philosophy,  Science,  Arts,  History,  the  Drama, 
Morals,  Manners,  and  Amusements.  London,  1819- 
1828.  New  Series,  May-July,  1828,  which  became  in- 
corporated with  The  Athenseum. 

The  Literary  Courier  of  Grub-Street.  See  Grub- 
Street  Journal. 

Lloyd's  Evening  Post.  Monday,  Wednesday,  Friday. 
London,  Vol.  I,  No.  1,  July  22,  1757  ;  Vol.  XL VI,  No. 
3591,  June  28,  1780. 

The  London  Chronicle.  To  be  continued  every  Tues- 
day, Thursday  and  Saturday.  Vol.  I,  No.  1,  January 
1,  1757;  Vol.  CXXXI,  July  15,  1822.  Afterwards 
united  with  The  London  Packet. 

The  London  Magazine  and  Monthly  Intelligencer. 
London,  1732-1783.  From  1735  to  1746  the  title  was 
"  The  London  Magazine  and  Monthly  Chronologer." 

The  London  Magazine.  Monthly,  1820-1824.  New 
Series,  1825-1828.  Third  Series,  1828-1829.  January- 
August,  1825,  title  appeared  as  "  London  Magazine 
and  Review." 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  457 

The  London  Packet.     See  London  Chronicle. 

Mist's  Weekly  Journal  ;  or,  Saturday  Post.  Lon- 
don, 1716-1728.  In  the  latter  year,  after  an  almost 
incessant  persecution  by  the  Whig  Government,  Mist 
was  under  the  necessity  of  abandoning  the  name  of  his 
journal,  and  of  reducing  its  tone.  The  name  was 
changed  to  "  Fog's  Weekly  Journal,"  q.  v. 

The  Monthly  Magazine,  and  British  Register. 
London,  1796-1826. 

Continued  as 
The  Monthly  Magazine  :  or,  British  Register  of  Lit- 
erature, Sciences,  and  the  Belles  Lettres.    New  Series, 
1826-1834. 

Continued  as 
The  Monthly  Magazine  of  Politics,  Literature, 
AND  THE  Belles  Lettres.     1835-1838. 
Continued  as 
The  Monthly  Magazine.     1839-1843. 

The  Monthly  Visitor,  and  Entertaining  Pocket  Com- 
panion. By  a  Society  of  Gentlemen.  London,  Janu- 
ary, 1797-April,  1803.  After  January,  1801,  the  title 
became  "  The  Monthly  Visitor,  and  New  Family 
Magazine." 

The  Morning  Chronicle.    Daily.    Loudon,  1768-1854. 

The  Morning  Herald.    Daily.    London,  1780-1869. 

The  Morning  Post.    Daily.    London,  1772-1803. 

The  New  Monthly  Magazine  and  Uni\tersal  Reg- 
ister.   London,  1814-1820. 

Continued  as 
The  New  Monthly  Magazine  and  Literary  Jour- 
nal.    1821-1836. 

Continued  as 
The    New    Monthly    Magazine    and    Humourist. 
1837-1871. 


458  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Continued  as 
The  New  Monthly  Magazine.      New  Series,   1872- 
1879.     New  Third   Series,   1879-1881.     New   Series, 
1882-1884. 

The  Pamphleteer.  Respectfully  dedicated  to  Both 
Houses  of  Parliament.  To  be  continued  occasionally, 
at  an  average  of  four  or  five  annually.  London,  1813- 
1826. 

The  Prompter.  Tuesday  and  Friday.  173  numbers. 
No.  I,  Tuesday,  March  12,  1734  ;  No.  CLXXIII,  Fri- 
day, July  2,  1736.  In  1784  E.  Malone  wrote  on  the 
fly-leaf  of  his  copy  of  The  Prompter  (now  the  property 
of  the  Yale  University  Library)  :  "  I  have  never  seen 
another  copy  of  this  work.  This  paper  was  written  by 
Aaron  Hill,  Esquire.  He  was  occasionally  assisted  by 
Wni.  Popple,  who  was  buried  at  Hampstead,  Feb.  13, 
1764.  This  Mr.  Popple  was  Governor  of  Bermudas 
[or  rather  perhaps  his  brother]."  The  British  Museum 
has  a  complete  copy  of  The  Prompter,  with  the  excep- 
tion of  Nos.  138  and  158  which  are  wanting. 

The  Spectator.  [By  Addison,  Steele,  and  others.] 
Innumerable  editions.  Original  edition,  daily,  London, 
1711-1714. 

The  Spectator.  A  weekly  Journal  of  News,  Politics, 
Literature,  and  Science.     London,  1828- 

Tait's  Edinburgh  Magazine.  1st  Series,  4  vols., 
1832-1834  ;  2d  Series,  28  vols.,  1834-1861.  In  June, 
1834,  Johnston's  Edinburgh  Magazine  was  incorporated 
with  Tait's. 

The  Tatler.  The  Lucubrations  of  Isaac  Bickerstaff 
Esq.  [i.  e.  Steele,  Addison,  and  others].  271  numbers. 
Weekly.     London,  April  12,  1709-January  2,  1710. 

The  Tatler.  A  daily  Journal  of  Literature  and  the 
Stage.  3  volumes.  London,  September  4,  1830-De- 
cember  31,  1831. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  459 

The  Theatre.  To  be  continued  every  Tuesday  and 
Saturday.  By  Sir  John  Edgar  [i.  e.  Sir  Richard 
Steele].  27  numbers.  London,  Saturday,  January  2, 
1720-Saturday,  April  2,  1720.  No.  28  was  added  by 
Steele  in  his  own  name.  The  Theatre  was  published 
by  Steele  in  defense  of  his  rights,  at  the  time  when  the 
Crown  revoked  his  patent. 

The  Theatre.  By  Sir  Richard  Steele  ;  to  which  are 
added  the  Anti-Theatre  ;  The  Character  of  Sir  John 
Edgar  ;  Steele's  Case  with  the  Lord  Chamberlain  ;  The 
Crisis  of  Property  ;  with  the  Sequel,  Two  Pasquins, 
&c.,  &c.  Illustrated  with  Literary  and  Historical  An- 
ecdotes.    By  John  Nichols.     London,  1791. 

The  Theatrical  Examiner  ;  or,  critical  remarks  on 
the  daily  performances,  with  bills  of  the  plays.  Lon- 
don, 1823-1828. 

The  Theatrical  Gazette  ;  or.  Nightly  Reflector  of  the 
Theatres  Royal,  Covent  Garden  and  Drury  Lane. 
London,  1818. 

The  Theatrical  Inquisitor  ;  or,  Literary  Mirror.  By 
Cerberus.  16  volumes.  London,  1812-1820.  New 
Series,  1  volume,  1821.  Discontinued  in  1821  and 
combined  with  Gold's  London  Magazine. 

The  Theatrical  Observer.  Daily.  London,  1821- 
1876. 

The  Times.  Begun  January  1,  1785,  as  "The  Daily 
Universal  Register."  On  January  1,  1788,  the  title 
was  changed  to  "The  Times  Universal  Register." 
London,  1785- 

Town-Talk.  In  a  series  of  Letters  to  a  Lady  in  the 
Country.  To  be  published  every  Saturday.  [By  R, 
Steele.]  9  numbers.  London,  December  17,  1715- 
February  13, 1715-16.  No.  6  contains  copy  of  Steele's 
theatrical  patent. 


460  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

The  Town  and  Country  Magazine;  or,  Universal  Re- 
pository of  Knowledge,  Instruction,  and  Entertainment. 
Monthly.     London,  1769-1791. 

The  Universal  Magazine  of  Knowledge  and 
Pleasure.     Monthly.     London,  1747-1803. 

Continued  as 
The  Universal  Magazine.    New  Series,  1804-1814. 

Continued  as 
The  New  Universal  Magazine.     1814, 1815. 

The  Universal  Museum  ;  or,  Gentlemen's  &  Ladies' 
Polite  Magazine  of  History,  Politicks  and  Literature. 
Monthly.     London,  1762-1764. 

Continued  as 
The  Universal  Museum  and  Complete  Magazine  of 
Knowledge  and  Pleasure.     1765-1770. 

The  AVasp.  A  Literary  Satire.  Containing  an  exposd 
of  some  of  the  most  notorious  literary  and  theatrical 
quacks  of  the  day,  etc.  Weekly.  12  numbers.  Lon- 
don, Saturday,  September  30-Saturday,  December  16, 
1826. 

The  Weekly  Journal  ;  or,  Saturday's  Post.  See 
Fog's  and  Mist's. 


INDEX 


INDEX 


Abbott,  arrested  for  acting  at  unli- 
censed theatre,  314  ;  supports  Bul- 
wer's  bill,  348  ;  delivers  address 
on  behalf  of  actors,  377  ;  resists 
union  of  patents  under  Bunn,  3S8. 

Adam,  counsel  for  patentees,  argu- 
ments of,  against  third  theatre, 
205-207. 

Adolphus,  counsel  for  Arnold  and 
Greville  in  third  theatre  contest, 
216. 

All '«  Well  That  Ends  Well,  revived 
by  Giffard.  76  n. 

Anne,  Queen  of  England,  closes 
Drury  Lane  Theatre,  12  ;  report 
of  attorney  to,  regarding  patent 
theatres,  13  ;  licenses  Collier  to 
act  at  Drury  Lane,  13  f.,  422  ;  Va- 
grant Act  of,  37  ;  legal  aspects  of 
her  ejectment  of  Rich  from  Drury 
Lane,  359. 

Anstruther,  M.  P.,  speaks  against 
Palmer's  Royalty  bill,  119. 

Arnold,  Dr.,  fails  to  secure  musical 
license,  163  ra.,  248  ;  establishes 
Lyceum,  248  ;  manager  of  Maryle- 
bone  Gardens,  281. 

Arnold,  S.  J.,  granted  license  for 
English  opera,  197  m.,  249 ;  peti- 
tions for  third  theatre,  214  ;  ques- 
tion of  season  at  English  Opera 
House  settled,  250  ;  joins  Greville 
and  Sheridan  at  Lyceum,  250  ;  an- 
nounces opening  of  Lyceum,  251  ; 
appeals  to  public  against  paten- 
tees, 258 ;  sustains  loss  by  fire, 
259  ;  opens  new  Opera  House,  259  ; 
his  license  reduced  to  four 
months,  259  ;  denounces  conduct 
of  Kinnaird,  261  f.,265  ;  defeated 
by  patentees,  268  ;  issues  mani- 
festo against  patentees,  272  f.  ; 
petitions  for  extension  of  license, 
356  ;  gets  license  extended,  365  ; 
petitions  for  regular  drama  at 
Lyceum,  415.    See  also  Lyceum. 

Astley,  P.,  resists  Sadler's  Wells 
Bill,  135  ;  character  of  perform- 
ances at  his  Ampliitheatre,  165  ; 
gets   burletta  added  "to   license. 


283  ;  builds  Olympic  Pavilion, 
291 ;  his  Amphitheatre  burns,  292  ; 
leases  Olympic,  292  ;  sells  to  El- 
liston,  292;  complains  of  paten- 
tees, 301. 
As  You  Like  It,  Royalty  Theatre 
opened  with,  l64. 

Baillie,  Joanna,  her  De  Monfort 
fails  at  Drury  Lane,  240. 

Bannister,  Charles,  Sr.,  convicted 
for  acting  at  Royalty  Theatre, 
114;  cripples  Haymarket  by  act- 
ing at  Drury  Lane,  157  ;  among 
leading  actors  at  Haymarket, 
255. 

Barlow  and  Reeve,  lease  Olympic 
Pavilion,  304  n. 

Barnard,  Sir  John,  mover  of  bill  to 
regulate  playhouses,  55  f. ;  his  bill 
objected  to  by  actors,  58 ;  with- 
draws bill,  59 ;  aids  patentees  in 
opposing  minors,  76. 

Barry,  S.,  arouses  jealousy  of  paten- 
tees, 90 ;  employed  at  Drury 
Lane,  91. 

Barry,  Mrs.  E.,  joins  Betterton's  re- 
volt, 7. 

Bartley,  succeeds  Raymond  at  Ly- 
ceum, 261 ;  reads  Arnold's  com- 
plaints to  public,  263 ;  delivers 
final  address  at  Lyceum,  269. 

Beard,  succeeds  J.  Rich  at  Covent 
Garden,  91,  143  ;  disposes  of  pat- 
ent, 91. 

Beaumont  and  Fletcher,  329. 

Beaumont,  Lord,  moves  amendment 
to  Regulation  BiU,  415. 

Beaux  Strntagem,  The,  converted 
into  burletta,  288. 

Bedford,  A.,  opposes  Goodman's 
Fields  Theatre,  26  f . 

Bedford,  Duke  of,  147,  149. 

Beggar'' s  Opera,  The,  marks  begin- 
ning df  dramatic  satire,  48 ;  when 
first  acted,  50 ;  opposition  to,  27, 
50  ;  success  of,  50  and  n.  3;  scene 
of,  281. 

Belfast,  Earl  of,  supports  Chamber- 
lain's authority,  333. 


464 


INDEX 


Bennett,  W.  J.,  licensed  at  the  Gar- 
rick,  368. 

Betterton,  Thomas,  revolts  against 
monopoly,  7 ;  starts  new  theatre, 
8;  significance  of  revolt,  9,  11; 
causes  of  failure  of  revolt,  11; 
contrasted  with  revolt  of  17011,  12; 
legal  meaning  of  revolt  reviewed, 
359,  42J. 

Birnie  and  Hall,  JJ.  P.,  refuse  to 
convict  minor  actors,  309,  333. 

Bisho))  of  London,  attacks  immoral- 
ity of  stage,  353  ;  causes  arrest  of 
Farrell,  353;;.;  his  attitude  re- 
garding Lent,  393,  399,  401. 

Bold  Stroke  fur  a  Wife,  yl,  266  ;  con- 
verted into  burletta,  28!3. 

Blackstone,  Sir  W.,  his  definition  of 
monopoly,  208  f. 

Booth,  Barton,  joins  Wilks  and  Gib- 
ber in  management  of  Drury 
Lane,  15,  57  ;  named  in  Steele's 
patent,  16 ;  is  satirized,  52. 

Bracegirdle,  Mrs.,  joins  Betterton's 
revolt,  7. 

Braham,  J.,  encourages  English  op- 
era, 162;  is  licensed  at  St.  James 
Tlieatre,  314,  367,  390;  licensed 
at  Colosseum,  368. 

Brett,  Capt.,  shareholder  in  Drury 
Lane  patent,  12. 

Brooke,  Henry,  his  Gustava  Vasa 
interdicted,  72. 

Brooke,  R.,  J.  P.,  refuses  to  convict 
actors  for  playing  at  Royalty,  114. 

Brougham,  Sir  Wm.,  counsel  for 
Arnold  and  Greville  before  Privy 
Council,  218;  supports  Bulwer's 
investigation  of  the  monopoly, 
329. 

Browne,  A.,  speaks  on  Theatre  Bill, 
238  and  Ji. 

Buckstone,  the  actor,  306. 

Bulwer,  Edward,  Lord  Lytton,  his 
Dramatic  Perfermances  Bill,  317, 
339-354,  380  f ;  leads  remonstrance 
against  monopoly,  324 ;  his  ar- 
raignment of  the  monopoly,  326  f , 
433  ;  his  Select  Committee,  debate 
on,  325-334,  report  on,  334-339. 

Bunn,  A.,  unites  patents,  343,  366  n, 
373,  379  ;  opposes  Bulwer's  bill, 
343  ;  petitions  against  third  thea- 
tre, 381 ;  Knowles's  letter  to,  383; 
letter  of  Chamberlain  to,  385 ;  de- 
feated in  Lenten  controversy,  392, 
394,  396,  398,  401 ;  restricted  by 
Chamberlain,  404,  406,  408;  ap- 
peals to  Parliament,  406 ;  fails, 
414  n. 

Burletta,  its  origin,  281 ;  its  import- 


ance to  the  minors,  282,  283,  287, 
288,  290,  291  ;  Colman's  defini- 
tion of,  282  ;  letter  to  Lord  Cham- 
berlain respecting,  283 ;  evolu- 
tion of,  283,  286,  288,  289,  294, 
3:i0,  389  ;  EUiston's  interpretation 
of,  288  f.,  292;  Tom  Thumb  en- 
acted as,  at  Covent  Garden,  285. 
Busy  Body,  The,  88. 

Calista,  prohibited  by  Lord  Cham- 
berlain, 59. 

Campbell,  Sir  John,  speaks  against 
the  monopoly,  330  f.;  moves 
amendment  of  Regulation  BiU, 
417. 

Carlisle,  Lord,  letter  of  Charles 
Howard  to  on  Playhouse  Bill,  55. 

Catalini,  Madame,  forced  to  cancel 
engagement  at  Covent  Garden, 
177. 

Chapman,  persecuted  by  patentees, 
309,  311,  313. 

Charke,  Mrs.  C,  80,  88. 

Charles  II,  grants  monopoly  to  Kil- 
ligrew  and  Davenant,  1,3;  causes 
union  of  1682,  5  ;  story  related  of, 
64. 

Charlotte,  Princess,  296. 

Chesterfield,  Lord,  opposes  Licens- 
ing Act,  65  f.,  390. 

Chetwood,  W.  R.,  his  Generoxu 
Freemason,  23  ;  his  History  of  the 
Stage,  quoted,  29,  n.  1,  30,  50,  n.  3. 

Chetwj-nd,  W.,  first  licenser  of  plays 
under  Licensing  Act,  71. 

Cibber,  CoUey,  his  Apologt/  quoted, 
5,  6,  8,  15,  33,  35,  38,  41,  42,  46, 
67  f.;  leading  actor  at  Drury  Lane, 
15;  shareholder  in  Steele's  patent, 
16  ;  prohibited  from  performing  at 
Drury  Lane,  16,  423  ;  sells  Drury 
Lane  patent  to  Highmore,  34; 
conduct  of  during  revolt  of  1733, 
35  f.;  his  discussion  of  Harper's 
case,  38  f.;  liis  alterations  of 
Shakespeare's  plays  satirized  by 
Fielding,  43 ;  attacks  Fielding, 
in  the  Apologi/,  46  f .;  failure  of  his 
Loi-e  in  a  Riddle,  50;  his  manage- 
ment of  Drury  Lane  criticised,  51 ; 
discusses  Licensing  Act,  07  f. 

Cibber,  Theophilus,  leads  revolt  of 
1733,  34  f.:  in  revolt  of  1743,  79; 
silenced  by  patentees,  80  ;  opens 
Little  Theatre,  87. 

Clanricarde,  Marquis  of,  his  debate 
on  Bulwer's  bill,  346,  352  f.;  and 
on  Regulation  Bill,  415. 

Clarges,  Sir  Thomas,  magistrate, 
decides  against  patentees,  38. 


INDEX 


465 


Coke,  Sir  E.,  cited  in  playing-card 
case,  203. 

Coleridge,  S.  T.,  his  Zapolya,  297. 

Collier,  W.,  ousts  C.  Rich  from 
Drury  Lane  Theatre,  13  ;  licensed 
by  Queen  Anne,  14,  422. 

Colman,  George,  the  elder,  pur- 
chases share  in  Covent  Garden, 
91 ;  sells  interest  in  Covent  Gar- 
den, and  buys  Foote's  patent,  93, 
142  ;  his  tenure  at  HajTnarket,  93, 
427  ;  resists  encroachments  of 
patentees,  94  f.,  151  ;  brings  out 
The  Miser  at  Haymarket,  9C; 
leagues  with  patentees  against 
Palmer,  103  f.,  105,  107  ;  time  of 
opening  Haymarket,  255  ;  death 
of,  150,  n. 

Colman,  George,  the  younger,  his 
Random  Records  quoted,  93,  95  ; 
succeeds  to  management  of  Little 
Theatre,  150,  n.;  appeals  to  public 
against  encroachments  of  paten- 
tees, 150,  152  f.;  defeated  by  pat- 
entees, 151,  157,  254  ;  writes  Ellis- 
ton  respecting  plans,  15G  ;  disposes 
of  main  interest  in  Haymarket, 
158  and  n.\  secures  new  privileges 
at  Haymarket,  254;  financial  dif- 
ficulties of,  256. 

Congreve,  William,  aids  Betterton's 
revolt,  8. 

Conyngham,  Lord  Chamberlain, 
hostile  to  the  monopoly,  369,  391, 
433  ;  favors  minors,  390  ;  restricts 
the  monopoly,  394,  398,  402,  404, 
406.  See  also  Lenten  Controversy. 

Cooke,  T.  P.,  his  acting  praised, 
304. 

Cookerton,  C,  licensed  at  the  Nor- 
ton Folgate,  368. 

Cooper,  James  Fenimore,  his  ro- 
mances dramatized,  295. 

Cope,  Col.,  writes  letter  about  Li- 
censing Act,  63  f. 

Comeille,  Death  of  Aefiilles,  23. 

Covent  Garden  Theatre,  built,  3 ; 
Duke  of  York  first  patron  of,  4  ; 
music  and  scenery  introduced  at, 
5  ;  patent  united  with  Drury 
Lane,  5 ;  rebuilt,  32  ;  sold  to 
Colman  el  al.,  91  ;  managers  of, 
disagree,  92  ;  Colman  succeeded  by 
Harris,  93,  97  w.;  low  order  of  per- 
formances at,  5,  53,  106,  176,  181, 
2.'?9,  295  ;  immorality  fostered  by, 
186  f.,  188,  229,  n.  2  ;  statistics  of, 
91,  97  n.,  142,  176  ?j.,  366  n.,  414 
n.  ;  enlarged,  150 ;  bums,  rebuilt, 
175 ;  management  of  cause  of  "  O. 
P."    riots,   176  f.;     size  of,  criti- 


cised, 181,  205;  enacts  Tom 
?'/«w«6a8burletta.,285  ;  competes 
with  minors,  297  f.  ;  at  war  with 
Drury  Lane,  371  f.  ;  is  restricted 
by  Lord  Chamberlain,  391  f.;  fi- 
nancial condition  of,  3G6  ra.,  412  ; 
burns,  419.  See  also  Monopoly, 
Patentees,  Majors  and  Minors. 

Cumberland,  R.,  joins  third  theatre 
party,  192. 

Curwood,  his  arguments  against  the 
monopoly ,  202-205. 

Dance,  Charles,  playwright,  286. 

Dancer,  Mrs.  (Mrs.  S.  Barry),  90. 

Dartmouth,  Earl  of.  Lord  Chamber- 
lain, unfriendly  to  the  monopoly, 
160  f. ;  encourages  minor  theatres, 
166  f.,  431  ;  refuses  to  interfere 
in  "O.  P."  riots,  189;  prevents 
use  of  "dormant  patent,"  234; 
grants  licenses  to  Arnold  and  Gre- 
ville,  248 ;  authority  of,  ques- 
tioned by  Sheridan,  253 ;  aids 
minors  in  the  burletta  conflict, 
284  f .  ;  forced  by  patentees  to  re- 
tract license  to  Elliston,  293. 

Davenant,  Sir  W.,  granted  theatri- 
cal patent,  1,3;  introduces  music 
and  scenery  at  Covent  Garden,  5 ; 
his  heirs  dispose  of  patent,  10. 
See  also  Monopoly,  and  Covent 
Garden  Theatre. 

Davenport,  convicted  for  violating 
monopoly,  317. 

Davidge,  manager  of  the  Coburg, 
joins  minors  against  majors,  312  ; 
advocates  free  trade  in  theatre, 
332  ;  supports  Bulwer's  bill,  348. 

DeCamp,  actor,  157. 

Delpini,  humorist,  102. 

De  Monfort,  fails  at  Drury  Lane, 
240. 

Devonshire,  Duke  of.  Lord  Cham- 
berlain, 87,  ICO  ;  refuses  to  renew 
agreement  between  majors  and 
minors,  280  ;  closes  Strand  The- 
atre, 318  ;  takes  hand  in  Lenten 
controversy,  391  f. 

Dibdin,  Charles,  his  History  of  the 
Stage  quoted,  42,  48 ;  builds  the 
Sans  Souci,  165 ;  originates  eques- 
trian drama,  287. 

Dibdin,  Thomas,  declines  share  in 
Haymarket,  158  n.\  leading  minor 
manager,  294  ;  competes  with  Co- 
vent Garden,  297  f. 

D'Israeli,  B.,  opposes  Lenten  re- 
strictions, 401. 

Dixon,  R.,  licensed  at  Sadler's  Wells, 
368. 


466 


INDEX 


Dixon,  scene-painter,  paints  scenes 
for  Royalty  Theatre,  Wi. 

Doggett,  T.,  shareliolder  in  Drury 
Laue,  15  ;  discarded  for  Booth,  15. 

Dormant  Patent,  143,  144  n.,  147, 
148,  1G8,  1(;0,  172,  173,  213,  2'20, 
221,  234,400,  4<)7n.,  409. 

Dorset,  Earl  of.  Lord  Chamberlain, 
espouses  Betterton's  cause,  7. 

Douglas,  rejected  by  patentees,  412. 

Downes,  John,  his  Ruscius  Anglica- 
nu.i  quoted,  7. 

Dowton,  dramatist,  ill-treated  by 
patentees,  349. 

Dramatic  Censor  for  1811,  14  n., 
228,  237.    See  uIho  Williams,  J. 

Dramatic  Performances  Bill,  339- 
3.'>4.   See  also  Bulwer. 

Drury  Lane  Theatre,  built,  3  ; 
Charles  II  first  patron  of,  4 ; 
early  success  of,  5 ;  patent  of, 
united  with  Covent  Garden,  5 ; 
leading  actors  at,  5 ;  closed  by 
Crown,  12  ;  under  temporary  li- 
cense, 19,  81,  n.  2, 149  n. ,  prosper- 
ity of,  under  Wilks,  Cibber,  and 
Booth,  19  ;  secures  Garrick,  7G  ; 
purchased  by  Garrick  and  Lacey, 
81,  n.  1 ;  used  for  summer  season, 
88  ;  becomes  property  of  Sheri- 
dan et  nL.  97  n.\  statistics  of,  10, 
34,  141,  179  «.,  214  n.,  3G6  n.,  414 
n.;  rebuilt,  141  f . ;  immense  size 
of,  150 ;  burns,  174 ;  company 
occupies  Lyceum,  214,  3G0  and  n  ; 
Rebuilding  Act,  227  n.,  231,  233, 
236,  237,  241  ;  difflcultie.s  of  re- 
building, 201,  20G,  234,  235,  237, 
243  ;  is  rebuilt,  241 ;  lo*  financial 
condition  of,  143,  20G,  234  f.,  257, 
315,  349,  301,  3GG  n.,  370,  412 ; 
saved  by  Kean,  294  ;  at  war  with 
Covent  Garden,  371  f. ;  restricted 
by  Lord  Chamberlain,  394,  39S, 
402, 404.  See  also  Monopoly,  Pat- 
entees, Dormant  Patent. 

Duncombe,  T.  S.,  speaks  on  Bul- 
wer's  bill,  333  ;  seconds  Bunn's 
cause  against  Chamberlain,  395, 
398,  402,  406  ;  shows  necessity  of 
amending  theatrical  laws,  414. 

East  London  Theatre,  122,  304.    See 

also  Royalty  Theatre. 
Eduard  and  Eleanora,  prohibited, 

72. 
Edwin,  among  leading  actors  at  the 

Haymarket,  255. 
Egerton,  favors  Bulwer's  bill,  343; 

opposes  union  of  patents,  380. 
Elliston,  R.  W.,  letter  of  Colman  to 


respecting  plans  at  Haymarket, 
15G  :  represents  Column  in  ad- 
dress to  |)ublic,  255  ;  leases  Royal 
Circus,  288  ;  buys  Olympic  Pavil- 
ion of  Astley,  292;  in  difficulties 
with  patentees,  292  f.,  299  f.  ;  sus- 
tained by  Chamberlain,  301  ;  peti- 
tions for  privileges  at  tlie  Royal 
Circus,  21G,  290 ;  leases  Drury 
Lane  Theatre,  274,  304  n.  ;  his 
practice  of  "puffing,"  304;  hie 
tactics  against  tlie  minors,  274, 
276  f.,  304;  secures  Kean,  276,277; 
compromises  with  minors,  279  ; 
fails  at  Drury  Lane,  and  returns  to 
Royal  Circus  (Surrey),  ?.m,  3G6  n., 
37U71.;  factor  in  downfall  of  mo- 
nopoly, 288,  294,  297,  299,  306, 
370  n. 

Elton,  favors  Bulwer's  bill,  348. 

EngUsh  Opera  House.  See  Lyceum. 

Erskine.  James,  criticises  Loudon 
theatres,  56  f. 

Fair  Rosamond,  prohibited  during 
Lent,  394;  not  licensed  on  first 
representation,  40S. 

Farinelli,  interdicted  during  Lent, 
401  f. 

Farley,  comedian,  story  related  of, 
2G6f. 

Farrell,  J.,  supports  Bulwer's  bill, 
348;  arrested,  :i53  n  .;  secures  li- 
cense for  Royal  Pavilion,  3G8.  See 
also  Wyatt. 

Fawcett,  acting-manager  at  Little 
Theatre,  153. 

Fazio,  297,  298. 

Fielding,  Henry,  brings  out  bur- 
lesques and  satires  at  Haymarket, 
23,  42  f.  ;  organizes  Moguls,  42  , 
satirizes  Cibber  family,  43 ;  his 
satires  justified  by  Secret  Com- 
mittee, 44 ;  accused  of  bringing 
about  Licensing  Act,  4G  f . ;  success 
of  satires  accounted  for,  59  f.  ;  his 
Pasquin  praised  by  Hill,  60 ;  not 
sole  cause  of  Licensing  Act,  69. 

Fitzball,  manager  of  Covent  Garden 
for  one  day,  366  n 

Fitz Williams.  Mrs.,  story  related  of, 
286 ;  leading  actress  at  Sadler's 
Wells,  307. 

Fleetwood,  C,  purchases  Drury 
Lane  patent,  40 ;  secures  Garrick, 
76 ;  ruined  by  revolt  of  1743, 
81,  n.  1,  86  ;  criticised,  82  f. 

Foote.  Samuel,  his  debut,  78 ;  his 
"Dish  of  Tea,"  87;  his  Minor, 
Orators,  and  Maijor  of  Garrait 
brought  out,  88  ;  loses  limb,  88  f . ; 


INDEX 


467 


secures  patent  for  summer  the- 
atre, 89  ;  his  success  arouses  jeal- 
ousy of  Garrick,  itl  ;  his  Devil 
I'ljon  Two  Sticks,  91  ;  sells  pateut 
to  Colman,  93 ;  death  of,  93,  w.  1; 
time  of  opening  Haymarket,  255  ; 
significance  of  his  patent,  4'J7. 

Ford,  shareholder  in  Drury  Lane 
patent,  97  ?i. 

Forrester,  convicted  for  violating 
Licensing  Act,  320.  See  also 
Williams  and  Forrester. 

Fox,  Charles  James,  aids  Sheridan 
against  minors,  131. 

Garrick,  David,  first  appearance  in 
London,  74  f.,  lOf,  7i.  3;  revolu- 
tionizes acting,  75  ;  threatened  by 
patentees,  76;  joins  company  at 
Drury  Lane,  76.  his  Lping  Valet 
and  Lethe  brought  out,  767j.;  with 
Macklin,  leads  revolt  of  1743,  77  ; 
purchases  Drury  Lane  patent' 
81,  n.  1;  jealous  of  Foote's  success, 
91,  94;  satirised  by  Foote,  92; 
encroaches  on  summer  theatre, 
93  f.  ;  sole  proprietor  of  Drury 
Lane,  97  n.  ;  sells  to  T.  Sheridan 
et  al.,  97  n.  ,  deatli  of,  97  n.  ;  the 
stage  of  his  time  described,  182  f. 
Gattie,  actor,  260. 
Gay,  John,  Gibber's  jealousy  of,  50. 

See  also  Begg(tr''s  Opera. 
Genest,  J.,  his  History  of  the  Stage 
quoted,  22,  30,  35,  37",  41,  42  45 
71,  76,  81,  87,  298. 
George  BarnueU,  comes  out  at  ir- 
regular theatre,  29,  411. 
George  I,  accession  of,  13  ,  permits 
Rich  to  open  Lincoln's  Inn  Fields 
Theatre,  13;  grants  Steele  a  pat- 
ent, 16  ,  revokes  Steele's  patent, 
18,  423.  ' 

George  II,  act  of  lOth  year  of,  see 
Licensing  Act ;  act  of  25th  year 
of,  125,  136  and  n.,  369,  n.  2,  428- 
act  of  28th  year  of,  126.  ' 

George  III,  act  of  28th  year  of,  137 

f.,  335. 
George  IV,  extends  license  of  Little 

Theatre,  279. 
Gibson,  J.,  licensed  at  Royal  Stand- 
ard, 368. 
Giffard,  Henry,  manager  of  Good- 
man's Fields  Theatre,  28;  brief 
account  of,  29  ;  succeeds  Odell  at 
Goodman's  Fields,  29  ;  opposition 
to,  29;  his  tenure  at  Goodman's 
Fields,  32  f.;  admitted  to  share  in 
Drury  Lane  patent,  34,  41,  n.;  Va- 
grant Act  of  12  Anne  applied  to, 


37;  instrumental  in  bringing  about 
Licensing  Act,  44  f.,  74;  opens 
Goodman's  Fields  Theatre  by 
strategy,  73;  his  relations  with 
Walpole,  74  and  n.;  introduces 
Garrick  on  London  stage,  75; 
threatened  by  patentees,  76;  forced 
to  close  Goodman's  Fields,  76; 
revives  Shakespeare's  plays,  76  n. 
See  also  Goodman's  Fields  Thea- 
tre. 
Giffard,  W.,  21  n. 
Glengall,  Earl  of,  opposes  Bulwer's 
bill,  353,  opposes  Regulation  Bill, 
415. 
Glossop,   manager  of  the   Coburg, 

resists  patentees,  302. 
Golden  Rtimp,  The,  immediate  cause 

of  Licensing  Act,  44  f.,  74. 
Goldsmith,   Oliver,  his  She  Stoops 
to   Conquer   forced  on   stage   bv 
Johnson,  4U. 
Gomersall,  R.,  licensed  at  the  Gar- 
rick, \H\S. 
Goodman's  Fields  Theatre,  built  by 
Odell,   24;    opposition   to,   25   f.; 
silenced  by  crown  authority,  28  ; 
reopened  by  Giffard,  29  ;  location 
of,  30  f.;  question  as  to  tenure  at, 
32  f.;  closed  by  Licensing  Act,  72; 
reopened,  73;  Garrick  appears  at, 
75  ,  closed  by  Licensing  Act,  76. 
Grafton,  Duke  of,  Lord  Chamber- 
lain, 77,  160. 
Graham,  Sir  J.,  reviews  condition 

of  drama,  413. 
Green  and  Amber,  brokers,  Drury 

Lane  mortgaged  to,  81  n. 
Greville,  Henry  Fulke,  attempts  to 
establish    English  opera,   161    f  , 
248,  makes  first  legal  attempt  to 
break   monopoly,   163,  429;   peti- 
tions for  third  theatre  grant,  212 ; 
secures  license  for  music,  248  ,  his 
"  Pic-Nic  Society,"  248,  291. 
Gusiava  Vasa,  prohibited,  72. 
Guy  Mannering,  122. 

Hall,  Sir   B.,   presents  petition   to 

amend  Licensing  Act,  406. 
Hall,  magistrate,  309,  333.    See  also 

Birnie. 
Hamlet,  283,  286,  389. 
Hamlet,  Thomas,  refused  a  license, 

368. 
Hammond,  lessee  of  Strand  Theatre, 

321  ;   his  victory  over  patentees, 

Harlowe,  Mrs.,  patentees  forbid  to 

act  at  Lyceum,  263. 
Harper,  prosecuted  by  patentees  for 


468 


INDEX 


vagrancy,  38 ;  significance  of  case, 
41 ;  effect  of  case  on  theatrical  sit- 
uation, 42  f. ;  comment  on  case,  O'J. 

Harris,  H.,  part  owner  of  Coveut 
Garden  Tlieatre,  01 ;  opposes  Roy- 
alty Tlieatre,  103,  IOC  f.;  accused 
of  illiberality,  109;  holds  both 
patents,  142;  sole  manager  of 
Covent  Garden,  143 ;  sliares  pat- 
ent with  J.  P.  Kemble,  176  re.;  dis- 
misses Holman  and  Pope  from 
company,  237  ;  aids  Kinnaird  in 
war  of  encroachments,  2G4 ;  suc- 
ceeded by  C.  Kemble,  366  n. 

Hart,  C,  leading  actor  at  Drury 
Lane,  5. 

Haymarket  Theatre,  see  Little  Thea- 
tre. 

Henry  V,  revived  by  Giffard,  76  n. 

Highmore,  John,  purchases  Drury 
Lane  patent,  ;54  ;  his  part  in  re- 
volt of  1733,  34  f.  :  compelled  to 
dispose  of  patent,  40. 

Hill,  Aaron,  editor  of  "Prompter," 
opposes  theatrical  monopolj-,  52, 
85  f .  ;  his  views  on  stage  regula- 
tion, 56  n.,  5S  n.  ;  commends 
Fielding,  60  ;  his  views  respect- 
ing the  minors,  GO  ;  his  predic- 
tions, as  to  the  monopoly,  realized, 
121  ;  his  opinion  quoted,  361,  418. 

Holman,  actor,  dismissed  from  Co- 
vent  Garden,  237 

Home,  John,  his  Doug/as  rejected 
by  patentees,  412. 

Honeymoon,  The,  rejected,  411. 

Home,  Solicitor-General,  counsel 
for  Arnold  in  attempt  to  secure 
extended  privileges  at  Lyceum, 
357. 

Howard,  Hon.  Charles,  refers  to 
Playhouse  Bill,  55. 

Howard,  F.,  Earl  of  Carlisle,  de- 
scribes stage  in  Garrick's  time, 
182  f .  ;  deprecates  private  boxes  at 
Covent  Garden,  187  f. 

Howard,  Sir  R.,  aids  Betterton's 
revolt,  7. 

Hughes,  Charles,  builds  Royal  Cir- 
cus, 287. 

Hughes,  E.,  licensed  at  Sadler's 
Wells,  368. 

Hunt,  M.  P.,  attacks  the  monopoly, 
325. 

Htir/othrumbo,  popularity  of,  22  f.  ; 
prohibited,  24. 

Hussey,  M.  P.,  amends  Interlude 
Bill,  133, 138. 

Inchbald,  Mrs.  E.,  patentees  neg- 
lect her  comedy,  412. 


Interlude  Bill,  131  f. 
Irixh  Ambassador,  The,  332 
Italian  Opera,  10,  11,  15,  144,  145, 
150,  172,  247,  3G0,  390,  404,  415. 

Jackson,  Dr.,  endorses  Palmer's 
theatre,  112  and  n. 

Jackson,  Randle,  arguments  of, 
against  third  theatre,  207-212. 

Jerrold,  Douglas,  purchases  Strand 
Theatre,  321  ;  first  appearance  as 
an  actor,  321  ;  supports  Bulwer's 
bill,  348. 

Johnson,  B.,  actor,  10. 

Johnson,  Dr.,  gets  She  Sloops  to 
Conquer  acted,  411. 

Jones,  Charlotte,  licensed  at  Sad- 
ler's Wells,  368. 

Jones  and  Rodwell,  lease  the  Adel- 
phi,  303,  n.  2  ;  improve  character 
of  Strand,  205. 

Jonson,  Ben,  5,  329. 

Kean,  Charles,  joins  company  against 
patentee,  386. 

Kean,  Edmund,  performs  at  Drury 
Lane,  276,  277,  204,  371  ;  his  ex- 
perience in  America,  277  ;  alleged 
cause  of  his  leaving  Drury  Lane, 
371  71.;  death  of,  372. 

Keeley,  arrested  for  acting  at  un- 
licensed theatre,  314 ;  supports 
Bulwer's  bill,  348. 

Kelly,  Miss,  delivers  Arnold's  ad- 
dress at  Lyceum,  259  ;  disregards 
prohibition  of  patentees,  260  ;  is 
refused  license  to  open  the 
Strand,  317  ;  petitions  Parliament, 
344  ?i. 

Kemble,  C,  insulted  by  rabble,  310; 
-succeeds  Harris  at  Covent  Garden, 
366  n.  ;  refused  license  during 
Lent,  391. 

Kemble,  J.  P.,  acting-manager  of 
Covent  Garden  Theatre,  176  n.; 
criticised  for  employing  foreign 
actors,  177  ;  responsible  for  "  O. 
P."riots,  179, 181,230  7*.;  receives 
praise,  206  and  n. ;  accused  of  pro- 
fessional jealousy,  237  and  n..  244; 
introduces  quadrupeds  at  Covent 
Garden,  230  ;  with  Mrs.  Siddons, 
plays  De  Mon/ort,  240. 

Kenney,  dramatist,  unjustly  treated 
by  patentees,  332,  349. 

Killigrew,  Thomas,  granted  theatri- 
cal patent  by  Ch.irles  II,  1,3.  See 
also  Monopoly  and  Dormant  Pat- 
ent. 

King  Arthur,  revived  by  Giffard, 
70  n. 


INDEX 


469 


King's  Theatre,  see  Opera  House 
and,  142  n. 

Einnaird,  D.,  forbids  Drury  Lane 
actors  to  appear  at  Lyceum,  IJGO  f . ; 
replies  to  Mrs.  Orger,  204. 

Knight,  Joseph,  his  Preface  to  Ros- 
cius  Anglicanus  quoted,  32  n. 

Knowles,  James  Sheridan,  petitions 
Parliament  for  protection  to  dra- 
matists, 33'.l;  his  play,  The  Wife, 
348,  370,  377;  ill-treated  by  pat- 
entees, 348  f.,  372;  attempts  to 
establish  third  theatre,  355,  380- 
380;  rejects  overtures  to  write 
for  patentees,  380,  383;  goes  to 
America,  387. 

Kynaston,  E.,  among  leading  actors 
at  Drury  Lane,  5. 

Lacey,  joint  owner  of  Drury  Lane 
patent,  81  n.\  death  of,  97  n. 

Lacy,  J.,  among  leading  actors  at 
Drury  Lane,  5. 

Laporte,  M.,  manager  of  Covent 
Garden  Theatre  and  Opera  House, 
3e4w.,3G6n.,371;  his  rivalry  with 
Polhill,  371 ;  mistreats  actors,  375 
f.;  checkmated  by  actors,  377. 

Lear,  90. 

Lee,  Alexander,  leases  Drury  Lane 
Theatre,  366  n.;  fails,  370. 

Lee,  the  actor,  90. 

Lenten  Controversy,  The,  391-404. 

Leopold,  Prince  of  Coburg,  chief 
patron  of  Coburg  Theatre,  296. 

Levy,  brings  suit  against  Yates,  286. 

Lewis,  "Monk,"  159. 

Licensing  Act,  The,  immediate  re- 
sult of  Golden  Rump,  44  ;  cause 
of,  ascribed  to  Fielding,  46  f.; 
comment  on  causes  of,  48  f.;  sug- 
gested by  Walpole,  63  ;  chief  pro- 
visions of,  63  f.;  objections  to,  65 
f.;  passed  by  Parliament,  66;  Gib- 
ber's comments  on,  67  f.;  meaning 
and  necessity  of,  69  f.;  causes  mi- 
nor theatres  to  close,  72  ;  various 
interpretations  of,  66,  69,76,  83  f., 
160  f.,  170,  171.  309,  390,  393,  396, 
399  f .,  408,  410,  414,  424 ;  efficacy 
of,  72,  76,  80,  86,95,  109  f.,  113, 
120,  258,  269,  290,  293,  311,  317, 
318,  320,  322,  382  ;  evasions  of, 
73,  78,  79,  96,  282,  287,  289,  308, 
309,  314,  330,  368,  389;  see  also 
Burletta  ;  operations  of,  criticised, 
72  f.,  81,  83,  106,  115,  121,355; 
modification  of,  demanded,  120 ; 
amended,  137,  139  n.;  article  v 
of,  cited,  198 ;  amendment  of, 
prayed  for,  406 ;  abolition  of,  de- 


manded, 411  ;  superseded  by  The- 
atre Regulation  Bill,  412-420; 
review  of,  424  f. 

Lillo,  George,  his  George  Barnwell 
put  on  at  minor,  411. 

Linley,  shareholder  in  Drury  Lane 
patent,  97  n. 

Liston,  J.,  patentees  forbid  to  act  at 
Lyceum,  261  ;  acts  at  Olympic, 
307. 

Little  Theatre  in  Haymarket,  built, 
22  ;  early  success  of,  22  f.;  se- 
cured by  revolting  actors,  1733, 
35  ;  occupied  by  Fielding's  Mo- 
guls, 42  ;  buffoonery  at,  opposed 
by  Aaron  HUl,  52  ;  closed  by  Li- 
censing Act,  72  ;  used  by  Mack- 
lin,  1743,  78 ;  occupied  by  Foote, 
and  T.  Gibber,  87  ;  becomes  sum- 
mer theatre  under  Foote,  89  f. ; 
a  third  roy<il  theatre,  90,  93,  103 
n.;  Foote  sells  to  Golinan,  93; 
unable  to  compete  with  patent 
houses,  95  f.;  joins  patent  houses 
against  Royalty  Theatre,  103 ; 
opposes  encroachments  of  patent- 
ees, 150,  157,  254  f.;  sold  to  Mor- 
ris and  Winston,  158  ;  has  license 
extended,  254,  256,  279,  305,  390  ; 
reduced  to  four  months,  250 ; 
pulled  down,  rebuilt,  278;  the 
leading  minor,  305,  413. 

Lord  Chamberlain,  aids  Betterton's 
revolt,  7 ;  sides  with  actors 
against  Rich,  12  ;  order  of  to  C. 
Rich,  12  ;  forbids  Gibber  to  per- 
form at  Drury  Lane,  16 ;  recalls 
Steele's  patent,  16 ;  theatres 
brought  under  jurisdiction  of,  18 ; 
refuses  to  interfere  in  revolt  of 
1733,  36 ;  prohibits  PoUy,  51 ; 
prohibits  Calista,  59  ;  arbitrary 
authority  of,  opposed,  59 ;  powers 
of,  defined  by  Licensing  Act,  63  ; 
declines  to  aid  revolt  of  1743,  77  ; 
issues  summer  license  to  T.  Gib- 
ber, 87  ;  powers  of,  at  close  of  18th 
century,  139;  functions  of,  as  in- 
terpreted by  patentees,  170 ;  au- 
thority of,  questioned,  33,  59, 253, 
404  ;  sides  with  patentees,  258  ; 
arranges  compromise  between 
majors  and  minors,  279  ;  unable 
to  define  "burletta,"  284;  sus- 
tains EUiston  against  patentees, 
301  ;  compels  Strand  Theatre  to 
close,  318  ;  Bulwer's  recommenda- 
tion respecting,  335  ;  question  of 
jurisdiction  of,  344  f.,  369  ;  em- 
powered by  Crown  to  license 
minors,  363 ;  hastens  downfall  of 


470 


INDEX 


monopoly,  IGO  f.,  165  f.,  1G9  f., 

246,  369,  377,  391-404,  406,  408  ; 
autliority  of,  reviewed,  160,  170, 
f.,  369,  423  f.,  431  f. 

Lord  Chancellor's  decision,  1831, 
356-364. 

Lore  for  Love,  8,  9. 

Lyceum  Theatre,  founding  of,  248  ; 
character  of  first  performances 
at,  252  f .  ;  distinction  given  to,  by 
Drury  Lane  company,  253;  suc- 
cess of,  256  ;  rebuilt  as  New  Eng- 
lish Opera  House,  257  ;  opposed 
by  patentees,  258  f. ;  burns,  356 
and  n  ;  has  season  extended,  363, 
365,  390. 

Macbeth,  223,  266,  283,  289,  389. 

MacFarren,  G.,  311  ;  opens  Strand 
Theatre,  320  ;  persecuted  by  pat- 
entees, 320. 

Macklin,  Charles,  in  revolt  of  1733, 
36  ;  acting-manager  of  Drury  Lane 
Theatre,  77  ;  revolts  from  Drury 
Lane  and  opens  Little  Theatre, 
78;  quarrels  with  Garrick,  78 ; 
submits  to  patentees,  79. 

Mackworth,  Sir  H.,  supports  Sad- 
ler's Wells  Bill,  131. 

Macready,  William  Charles,  father 
of,  manager  of  Royalty  Theatre, 
122  ;  his  views  on  the  monopoly, 
332  ;  leases  Covent  Garden  The- 
atre, 366  7).  ;  acts  with  Kean  in 
Othello,  371  ;  his  prudence,  380  ; 
quarrels  with  Buun,  414  n.  ;  at- 
tempts to  revive  Shakesperean 
plays,  418,  419. 

Mahon,  Lord,  reviews  condition  of 
the  drama,  410 ;  presents  petition 
of  authors,  412  n. 

Mainwariug,  M.  P.,  mover  of  Sad- 
ler's Wells  BiU,  131. 

Majors  and  Minors,  war  between, 
167,  246,  254  f.,  260  f.,  271,  274, 
284,  288,  292  f.,  297,  299,  302,  304, 
308,  309,  311,  314,  317,  318,  319, 
320,  321,  339-354,  356  f.,  389. 

Malibi-an,  plays  at  Drury  Lane,  371. 

Mar/orio,  a  satire  on  Pasquui,  43. 

Marryatt,  M.  P.,  accuses  Kemble  of 
lowering  public  taste,  239. 

Mary,  Queen  of  England,  death 
of,  8. 

MasanieUo,  332,  371. 

Mash,  T.  B.,  Deputy-Chamberlain, 
collects  precedents  of  Lord  Cham- 
berlain's authority,  171  and  n.  ; 
letter  of,  to  Lord  Dartmouth  re- 
specting Slieridan's  methods,  215  ; 
letter  of,  respecting  burlettas,  283 


f.  ;  is  criticised,  319;  delivers 
decision  on  Knowles's  petition, 
382 ;  his  part  in  Lenten  contro- 
versy, 392. 

Massiuger,  Philip,  329. 

Mathews,  Charles,  156,  n.  2  ;  brief 
account  of,  269,  /;.  2  ;  his  "  At 
H(;me "  performances,  270  f.  ; 
raises  standard  of  Adelphi,  305. 

Mellish,  M.  P.,  supports  tliird 
theatre  movement,  232,  238. 

Melrose,  manager  of  Tottenham 
Theatre,  persecuted,  311.  See  also 
Chapman. 

Mexborough,  Lord,  88. 

Mills,  Wm.,  leading  actor  at  Drury 
Lane,  10  ;  arrested  under  Vagrant 
Act,  37  f 

Milmau,  Henry  H.,  hisFazio,  297  f 

Minor  Tlieatres,  definition  of,  21, 
134  n.  ;  first  appearance  of,  21  f  ; 
question  of  crown  prerogative 
over,  33 ;  Aaron  Hill's  views  re- 
specting, 67  ;  the  leading  minors, 
21  f.,  24  f.,  98  f.,  165, 166,^94, 297  ; 
character  of  performances  at,  165, 
2.52, 281 ,  389,  397;  see  also  Burletta; 
become  leading  factor  in  struggle, 
246, 284  ;  immense  growth  of,  166, 
291,  296,  313  f.,  317,  368  ;  per- 
formances at,  commended,  303  f., 
307,  349,  411,  413  ;  petition  Par- 
liament against  the  monopoly, 
313 ;  persecuted  by  monopoly,  see 
Majors  and  Minors  ;  decision  re- 
specting licensing  of,  363 ;  secure 
extension  of  licenses,  365  f.  ;  final 
victory  of,  over  monopoly,  389, 
393  f .,  397,  406, 409, 430  f .  See  also 
Burletta,  Majors  and  Minors,  War 
of  Encroachments. 

Mitchell,  favors  Bulwer's  bill,  348. 

Mohun,  Maj.,  among  leading  actors 
at  Drury  Lane,  5. 

Moncrietf ,  the  dramatist,  complains 
of  treatment  by  monopoly,  324. 

Monopoly,  theatrical,  granted  to 
Killigrew  and  Davenant,  1  f .  ;  real 
beginning  of,  6 ;  purchased  by 
C.  Rich,  10;  attitude  of  Crown  to- 
wards, 8,  12,  13,  14,  18  f.,  422  ;  op- 
position to,  7,  12,  16,  34  f.,  41,  52, 
54,  58,  81  f.,  85  f.,105, 109,113, 132, 
152, 179, 180  n.,  223,  259,  302,  307, 
311  f.,  319,  325 f.,  332, 335,  348,  352, 
358 f.,  373, 41 1,422  ;  legal  opinions 
respecting,  8,  13,  17,  37,  38,  79, 
167,  196,  198,  202  f.,  224,  358  f., 
363  f.,  422  f.;  defeated  in  Harper 
case,  38 ;  victory  of,  over  revolt- 
ers,  86  ;  lowers  dramatic  art,  51  f., 


INDEX 


471 


60,  106,  159,  176,  181,  205,  229. 
237,  239,  244,  295,  300  f.,  326,  333, 
337,342,  351,  387,  411  ;  exempt 
from  act  of  25  George  II,  126  ; 
later  history  of,  141  f. ;  discussed, 
19,  33,  94,  ISO,  208,  228,  4.:2  ; 
baaed  on  original  patents,  18,  169, 
179,  196  f.,  221,  223,  358,406,409 ; 
opposes  Royalty  Theatre,  103  f.  ; 
aided  by  Fox,  131  ;  cause  of  con- 
tlictiug  legislation,  140  ;  accused 
of  fostering  immorality,  136, 177, 
186,  188.  205,  229  and  n.  2,  351  ; 
Blackstone's  definition  of,  208 ; 
precedents  in  support  of,  360 ; 
steps  in  downfall  of,  141,  160  f., 
166,  174,175,  196  f.,  227,234,  246, 
207,  288, 294 f.,  297,  301, 305f.,  312, 
315,  331,  349,  361,  364  71.,  365  f., 
366  n.,  369  f.,  375,  389,  394,  405, 
412-420,  433  ;  temporarily  saved, 
235  f.  ;  history  of,  reviewed,  422- 
433. 

Montrose,  Duke  of,  brings  about 
compromise  between  majors  and 
minors,  279 ;  licenses  burletta, 
285. 

Moore,  P.,  reports  condition  of 
Drury  Lane,  238  ;  manager  of  E. 
London  Theatre,  304. 

Morris,  with  Winston,  purchases 
Little  Tlieatre,  158  ;  defies  paten- 
tees, 278 ;  gets  license  extended, 
279  ;  forces  patentees  to  compro- 
mise, 279  ,  petitions  for  privileges, 
361  f.,  364  ;  his  license  extended 
to  eight  months,  365. 

Morton,  J.  M.,  dramatist,  advocates 
cause  of  monopoly,  332 ;  ranked 
among  leading  dramatists,  373. 

Murphy,  A.,  opens  Drury  Lane  for 
summer  season,  88 ;  writes  ad- 
dress for  Palmer,  104. 

Newcastle,  Duke  of,  Lord  Chamber- 
lain, prohibits  Colley  Gibber  from 
acting,  16 ;  revokes  Steele's  li- 
cense, 16  f. 

Norfolk,  Duke  of,  favors  third  the- 
atre, 227  n. 

Northey,  Sir  E.,-  delivers  opinion 
respectmg  legality  of  the  patents, 
17,  422. 

Odell,  Thomas,  builds  Goodman's 
Fields  Theatre,  25  f.;  his  theatre 
is  silenced,  28  ;  begins  new  thea- 
tre, 28  ;  is  made  deputy-licenser, 
70  n.  ^ 

Oldfield,  Mrs.  Anne,  leading  actress 
at  Drury  Lane,  10. 


Opera  House  in  Haymarket,  built 
by  Vanbrugh,  10 ;  used  for  Italian 
opera,  11;  transfeired  to  Swiuey, 
10  ;  used  by  Barry  and  Dancer  for 
regular  drama,  90 ;  statistics  con- 
cerning, 142  n.;  purchased  by  Tay- 
lor, 145;  burns,  145,  214;  rebuilt, 
146;  occupied  by  Drury  Lane 
company,  146 ,  threatened  by  pat- 
entees, 169. 

"  O.  P."  riots,  history  of,  175  f. 

O'Reilly,  manager  of  Pantheon,  his 
difficulties  over  Italian  opera, 
145  f. 

Orger,  Mrs.  M.  A.,  is  forbidden  by 
patentees  to  act  at  L3'ceum,  260; 
publishes  letter  in  self-defense, 
263  ;  acts  at  Olympic,  307. 

Osbaldison,  acts  at  Surrey,  307 ; 
supports  Bulwer's  bill,  348  ;  man- 
ager of  Covent  Garden  Theatre, 
366  n. 

Ossulton,  Lord,  favors  third  theatre, 
245. 

Othd/o,  78,  330,  371,  372. 

Otley,  M.  P.,  proposes  compromise 
bill,  355. 

Otway,  Thomas,  53,  159. 

Outline  for  a  General  Opera  Ar- 
rangement, history  of,  147  f.; 
motives  of  patentees  for,  168,  172  ; 
in  evidence  before  Pi-ivy  Council, 
220  ;  it  reappears,  404. 

Palmer,  John,  brief  account  of,  98 
f.;  projects  Royalty  Theatre,  99 ; 
opposed  by  patentees,  103  f.;  his 
authority  to  open  theatre  ques- 
tioned, 102,  104,  108;  forced  to 
close  theatre,  106  ;  his  lack  of 
foresight,  110;  a  characteristic 
address  of.  111  ;  reopens  the  Roy 
alty,  112  ;  success  of,  arouses  jeal- 
ousy of  patentees,  113;  gains 
public  sympathy,  115;  crooked 
conduct  of,  116  f.;  appeals  to  Par- 
liament, 118,  132  ;  returns  to  Lit- 
tle Theatre,  119,  255;  and  to 
Drury  Lane,  120 ;  his  self-decep- 
tion accounted  for,  124  f. ;  his 
methods  scored  by  Sheridan,  128; 
a  leading  comedian  at  the  Hay- 
market,  255 ;  significance  of  his 
attempt  to  open  the  Royalty,  120 
f.,  127,  428. 

Palmer,  R.,  convicted  as  a  vagrant, 
114;  at  odds  with  Haymarket 
manager,  157,  163. 

Pantheon,  opened  by  O'Reilly,  145  ; 
burns,  146 ;  Greville  tries  to  se- 
cure, for  English  opera,  101. 


472 


INDEX 


Parke,  Justice  James,  associate 
counsel  in  Lord  Chancellor's 
court,  357. 

Parker,  Sir  T.,  delivers  opinion  re- 
specting legality  of  patents,  17. 

Parsons,  comedian  at  Haymarket, 
2.'^,-). 

PitJiquin,  brought  out  at  Little  The- 
atre, 43  ;  cause.sof  its  success,  fiO. 

Pasta,  Madame,  prevented  by  Lord 
Chamberlain  from  performing  at 
Drury  Lane,  404,  40G. 

Patent  Theatres,  see  Covent  Gar- 
den, Drury  Lane,  Monopoly, 
Patentees. 

Patentees,  early  methods  of,  7 ; 
some  account  of,  to  1733,  10  f.,  34 ; 
employ  Vagrant  Act  against  Mills 
and  Giffard,  37  :  favor  Licensing 
Act,  GG  ;  threaten  Giffard  and 
Garrick,  74  f. ;  charged  with  abus- 
ing privileges,  &?  f.,  188,  228,  243, 
312,  324  ;  consent  of,  necessary 
for  acting  regular  drama,  86,  93, 
94,  108,  255  ;  satirized  by  Foote, 
91  f.  ;  encroach  on  summer  season, 
95  f.  ;  instances  of  illiberality 
of,  83  f.,  93,  96,  105,  109,  113,  150, 
156,  237,  258,  200  f.,  289,  301,  309, 
316  f.,  319,  337,  349,  351,  372,  387, 
41 1  f .  ;  gain  victory  over  Palmer, 
119,  127;  defeat  Sadler's  Wells 
Bill,  128  f. ;  tactics  of,  against 
summer  theatres,  157;  cause  Col- 
man's  ruin,  158 ;  alarmed  at 
growth  of  minors,  107  f.  ;  claim 
right  to  interpret  Licensing  Act, 
170 ;  oppose  third  theatre  move- 
ment, 196-246;  rights  of,  dis- 
cussed by  Perceval,  213  ;  wage 
war  on  minors,  see  Majors  and 
Minors;  suicidal  war  among,  371 
f. ;  defeat  Knowles's  petition, 
382 ;  worsted  in  Lenten  contro- 
versy, 391-404  ;  reject  famous 
plays,  411  f. 

Peake,  R.  B.,  his  Patent  Seasons, 
274. 

Pemberton,  F.,  delivers  opinion  re- 
garding legality  of  patents,  17, 
422. 

Perceval,  S.,  Prime  Minister,  his 
opinion  respecting  validity  of 
original  patents,  21 2  f .  ;  rejects 
Elliston's  petition  for  extension  of 
privileges,  290. 

Perry,  J.,  licensed  at  Queen's 
Opera,  308. 

Place,  Francis,  opposes  stage  regu- 
lation, 332. 

Plague  0/  Riches,  The,  73  and  n. 


Polhill,  Capt.,  leases  Drury  Lane 
Theatre,  315  n.  ;  reports  financial 
condition  of  theatre,  315 ;  leases 
Covent  Garden  Theatre,  300  )i.  , 
fails,  370  ;  is  denied  license  dur- 
ing Lent,  391. 

P<j//y,  prohibited,  .50,  59. 

Pool,  the  dramatist,  373. 

Pope,  the  actor,  dismissed  from  Co- 
vent Garden,  237. 

Potter,  H.,  builds  Little  Theatre  in 
Haymarket,  22. 

Powell,  G.,  shareholder  in  Covent 
Garden,  91  ;  death  of,  143. 

Powell,  W.,  plays  in  America,  387. 

Price,  S.,  leases  Drury  Lane  Thea- 
tre, 300  re.;  fails,  370. 

Prince  of  Wales,  147,  149,  168,  215. 

Privy  Council,  members  of,  in  1810, 
195  ;  proceedings  before,  for  third 
theatre,  193-224. 

Pulteny,  scores  Walpole,  64 ;  op- 
poses Licensing  Act,  65  f . 

Quick,  the  actor,  106,  109. 
Quin,  James,  Life  of,  quoted,  42  n., 
40,50. 

Rae,  tragedian  at  E.  London  Thea- 
tre, 304. 

Ralph,  J.,  discusses  condition  of 
stage,  44,  82. 

Raymond,  George,  delivers  annual 
address  at  Lyceum,  256 ;  resigns 
position  at  Lyceum,  200 ;  describes 
trials  of  an  actor,  266;  his  Life 
nf  ElHslon,  289  ra. 

Raymond,  James  Grant,  actor  at 
Haymarket,  103. 

Rayner,  L.  B.,  founds  Strand  Thea- 
tre, 307  ;  joins  crusade  against  the 
monopoly,  312;  driven  out  by  pat- 
entees, 315  f.;  reopens  and  closes 
tlie  Strand,  321  ;  favors  investiga- 
tion of  monopoly,  333  ;  victory  of, 
over  monopoly,  308. 

Reeve,  leases  Olympic,  304  n.;  acts 
at  the  Adelphi,  300.  See  also  Bar- 
low. 

Relapse,  The,  8. 

Revolts  of  actors :  Betterton's  re- 
volt, 7f.;  revolt  of  1709,  12  f.; 
revolt  of  1733,  35  f.,  41  ;  revolt  of 
1743,  77  f.,  426;  revolt  of  1833, 
375  f.  See  also  Betterton,  T.  Gib- 
ber, Fleetwood,  Garrick,  High- 
more,  Laporte,  Macklin. 

Rice,  T.  S.,  sustains  Lord  Russell 
in  Lenten  controversy,  401  ;  moves 
amendment  to  Regulation  Bill, 
417. 


INDEX 


473 


Rich,  Christopher,  unites  patents, 
10  f.;  his  character  as  a  manager, 
7,  10  f.;  ejected  from  Drury  Lane 
Theatre,  12  f.;  buys  Lincoln's  Inn 
Fields  Theatre,  15;  his  apprecia- 
tion of  the  monopoly,  18  f.;  death 
of,  16. 

Rich,  John,  inherits  theatrical  pat- 
ents, 13,  16  ;  opens  Liucohi's  Inn 
Fields  Theatre  under  "  dormant 
patent,"  10,  407,  422;  builds  new 
Covent  Garden  Theatre,  32 ;  his 
Marforio,  43,  his  management  of 
Covent  Garden  Theatre  criticised, 
51  ;  death  of,  91. 

Riclinrd  Third,  75,  222,  301. 

Richardson,  Sarah,  petitions  against 
third  theatre,  203. 

Richmond,  Duke  of,  opposes  pat- 
entees, 136. 

Rivals,  The,  413. 

Robinson,  James,  and  William,  JJ. 
P.,  dismiss  Royalty  prisoners,  114. 

Rodwell,  303,  305.  See  Jones  and 
Rodwell. 

Rotch,  M.  P.,  belittles  actors,  345. 

Royal  Circus,  proprietors  of,  peti- 
tion for  privileges,  133, 1G5  ;  char- 
acter of  performances  at,  165, 288; 
some  account  of,  287  f.;  renamed 
The  Surrey,  288. 

Royalty    Theatre,     projected     and 

■  built,  99  f.;  description  of,  101; 
opening  of,  103  f.;  the  first  practi- 
cal defiance  of  Licensing  Act,  110; 
compelled  to  close,  106  ;  reopened 
as  a  minor,  112  ;  arrest  of  actors, 
114;  victory  of  patentees  over, 
119;  significance  of,  120  f.,  127; 
charged  with  fostering  immoral- 
ity, 136  ;  final  history  of,  121  f. 

Russell,  Strand  manager,  persecuted 
by  patentees,  318,  320.  See  also 
Wrench . 

Russell,  Sir  John,  opposes  patentees 
in  Lenten  controversy,  396,  399  f., 
401,  403, 

Rutherford,  shareholder  in  Covent 
Garden  patent,  91. 

Sadler's  Wells,  112 ;  disreputable 
character  of,  125 ;  applies  for 
special  bill,  127,  283  ;  accused  of 
infringing  monopoly,  130  ;  bill  de- 
feated, 131  ;  panic  at,  185,  ».  2  ;  a 
leading  minor,  165  ;  improved  con- 
ditions at,  304. 

Salisbury,  Marquis  of.  Lord  Cham- 
berlain, 147  f.,  IGO,  168,  431. 

Satire,  its  effect  on  the  stage,  21, 
22  f.  ;  as  applied  by  Fielding,  42  f .; 


committee  appointed  to  investi- 
gate, 44 ;  Beggar's  Opera,  the 
beginning  of,  on  stage,  49;  climax 
of,  reached  in  Fielding's  satires, 
49,  60 ;  abuse  of,  the  immediate 
cause  of  Licensing  Act,  44  f.,  62 
and  71.  2,  74. 

School  for  Scandal,  The,  116,  389. 

Scott,  proprietor  of  the  Sans  Pareil, 
applies  for  burletta  license,  283. 

Scott,  Sir  Walter,  his  romances 
dramatized,  295. 

Sentimenta/  Comedy,  The,  92. 

Serle,  T.  J.,  leads  remonstrance 
against  the  monopoly,  312,  324  ; 
speaks  in  defense  of  authors,  348 ; 
Hi-treated  by  patentees,  372  ; 
ranked  among  leading  dramatists, 
373 ;  supports  third  tlieatre  move- 
ment, 373,  387  f. 

Shakespeare,  5,  53,  74,  90,  159,  181, 
286,  289,  329,  349,  387,  415,  418, 
419,  420.  See  also  the  individual 
plays. 

Shell,  M.  P.,  doubts  eflBcacy  of  leg- 
islative control  of  stage,  333  ; 
presents  Knowles's  petition  for 
protection  to  dramatists,  339. 

Sheldon,  Wm.,  represents  Pantheon 
in  Opera  Arrangement,  147. 

Sheridan.  R.  B  ,  succeeds  to  man- 
agement of  Drury  Lane,  97  n. ,  127; 
defeats  Sadler's  Wells  Bill,  131 ; 
rebuilds  Drury  Lane  Theati'e,  141 
f.;  beset  by  difficulties,  143  f.; 
displays  shrewdness  in  Opera  Ar- 
rangement, 147  f. ;  his  motive  in 
securing  the  "  dormant  patent," 
172  ;  chief  opponent  to  third  the- 
atre movement,  193  f.;  petitions 
against  third  theatre,  200  ;  pre- 
vents Greville  from  establishing 
theatre,  213,  214  n.,  215,  250;  a 
sample  of  his  methods,  215 ; 
claims  monopoly  under  patent, 
218,  221 ;  description  of,  in  Privy 
Council,  222  ;  petitions  Parliament 
for  rebuilding  Drury  Lane,  226 ; 
defends  Kemble,  240  ;  his  finesse, 
235,  238,  240,  250. 

Sheridan,  T.,  buys  share  in  Drury 
Lane,  97  n.  ;  goes  to  Spain  for 
health,  222. 

Siddons,  Mrs.,  plays  De  3f or: fori, 
240;  referred  to,  by  Astley,  301. 

Smith,  T.,  Lord  Mayor,  heads  pe- 
tition for  third  theatre,  192  and  n. 

Sodojn  and  Onan,  a  satire  on  Foote, 
112  n. 

Somerset,  Duke  of,  favors  Bulwer's 
bill,  347,  348. 


474 


INDEX 


Spontini,  M.,  prevemted  by  Lord 
Cliumberlain  from  performing  in 
foreign  opera  at  patent  liouueB, 
407  f. 

Staples,  magistrate,  convicts  Roy- 
alty actors,  1 14. 

Steele,  Sir  li,,  contests  action  of 
Crown  revoking  patent,  16  f.;  a 
review  of  bis  case,  18  f. 

Sterling,  E.,  an  incident  related  of, 
280. 

Sugden,  Sir  E.,  counsel  for  Arnold 
in  third  theatre  proceedings,  357. 

Swiney,  O.,  succeeds  Vanbnigh  at 
Opera  House,  10  ;  absconds,  15. 

Tarleton,  Gen.,  speaks  against  third 
theatre  bill,  23'J. 

Taylor,  M.  A.,  mover  of  Royalty 
Bill,  118,  lo'J  ;  moves  to  enquire 
into  the  monopoly,  242. 

Taylor,  W.,  buys  King's  Theatre 
(Opera  House),  145  ;  his  condict 
with  O'Reilly  over  Italian  opera, 
14()  f.  ;  legal  aspects  involved  in 
conflict,  360 ;  secures  monopoly 
of  Italian  opera,  148. 

Tenterden,  Lord,  gives  decision 
against  minors,  311. 

Terry,  improves  character  of  the 
Adelphi,  305. 

Theatrical  booths,  21  and  n. 

Theatrical  legislation,  conflicts  in, 
124  f.  ;  explanation  of,  demanded, 
131,329;  attempts  at  regulating, 
127  f. ;  summarized,  138  f.,  399  f.  ; 
cause  of  injustice,  328,  330,  335, 
344,  350,  351,  403,  410  ;  partial  re- 
lief from,  secured,  3G3  ;  correction 
of,  promised,  403  ;  amendment  of, 
demanded,  410,  414  ;  reviewed, 
428. 

Theatre  Regulation  Bill,  history  of, 
412-420. 

Third  Theatre,  germ  of,  54  ;  plans 
of,  submitted,  189 ;  proceedings 
before  Privy  Council  for,  193-224  , 
House  of  Commons  petitioned  for, 
229  ;  parliamentary  proceedings 
respecting,  229-245  ;  promoters 
of,  accused  of  speculating,  239 ; 
bill  for  erecting,  defeated  by 
Whitbread,  236,  238,  241,  245; 
renewed  efforts  for,  244,  245 ; 
Kiiowles's  attempt  to  establish, 
355,  380-388  ;  attempts  of  actors 
to  establish,  225,  376  f.,  380;  ac- 
tion of  authors  respecting,  347  f., 
372  f.,  374,  380,  387  f.  ;  failure  of 
movement  discussed,  384,  385, 
428  f. 


Thomson,  James,  his  Edward  and 
Kleaiiora  prohibited,  72. 

Thurlow,  Chancellor,  legal  opinion 
on  King's  prerogative,  'MV). 

Tobin,  J.,  his  Uoiwymoon  rejected, 
411. 

Tom  Tlmmb,  first  appearance  of, 
23  ,  as  a  burletta,  285. 

Tree,  Ellen,  chief  actress  at  Covent 
Garden,  376 ;  declines  to  engage 
at  patent  house,  386  ;  goes  to  Ger- 
many to  act,  387. 

Turtou,  Sir  T.,  supports  Elliston's 
petition  for  privileges  at  the  Sur- 
rey, 290. 

Vnhapi»j  Penitent,  The,  9,  n. 

Union  of  1682,  5;  the  real  beginning 
of  theatrical  monopoly,  6  f.;  bro- 
ken by  Betterton's  revolt,  7  f. 

Union  of  1708,  10  f. 

Vagrant  act  of  12  Anne,  employed 
by  patentees,  37 ;  falls  into  disuse, 
69  ;  revived  by  Licensing  Act,  69  ; 
used  against  Palmer,  103,  113; 
descended  from  Sturdy  Beggar 
Act,  124;  patentees  threatened 
with,  396. 

Vanbrugh,  Sir  John,  builds  Opera 
House  in  Haymarket,  10;  trans- 
fers Betterton's  company  to  Hay- 
market,  10 ;  abdication  of,  10. 

VenUe  Preserved,  74,  90. 

Vestris,  Madame,  leading  actress  at 
Olympic,  307  ;  secures  extension 
of  licenses  for  minors,  367  ;  aids 
actors  against  Laporte,  378,  n.  2. 

Victor,  Benjamin,  his  History  of  the 
Theatres  quoted,  35  n.,  39  f.,  41  n., 
42  n.,  48.  73?!.,  dissents  from  Gib- 
ber's opinion  of  Harper's  trial,  39  f . 

Vining,  W. ,  represents  proprietors  of 
Tottenham  Theatre,  311  ;  favors 
Bulwer'8  bill,  348. 

Waithman,  alderman,  sides  with 
minors,  333. 

Waldron,  comedian,  15G. 

Wallack,  advocates  a  free  stage, 
388;  attempts  to  revive  Shake- 
speare's plays,  420  and  n. 

Walpole,  Horace,  mentioned  in 
Cope's  letter  to  Weston,  63. 

Walpole,  Sir  R.,  satirized  by  Field- 
ing, 43 ;  suspected  of  dictating 
The  Golden  Rump,  44  ;  his  politi- 
cal methods  criticised,  49  ;  seconds 
Barnard's  Bill,  56;  has  Licensing 
Act  passed,  63  f.;  severely  criti- 
cised by  Pulteny,  64. 


INDEX 


475 


■War  of  encroachments,  93,  95,  97, 
104, 150  f .,  15'i,  157,  IW,  -^54, 267  f., 
274  f.,  280,  308,  3G4,  305,  3<J0. 

Warburton,  M.  P.,  condemns  the 
monopoly,  342. 

Warde,  favors  Bulwer's  bill,  347. 

Warren,  counsel  for  third  theatre 
projectors,  arguments  of,  l'JO-202, 
216-218. 

Waylett,  Mrs.,  prosecuted  for  act- 
ing in  minor  theatre,  314. 

Webster,  joins  crusade  against  the 
monopoly,  312;  opens  the  Strand 
during  Lent,  397. 

West,  Mrs.,  leading  actress  at  the 
Surrey,  307. 

Weston,  E.,  letter  to,  concerning 
the  Licensing  Act,  63  f. 

Wetherell,  Sir  C,  counsel  in  case  of 
Majors  vs.  Minors,  256,  n.  1,  362, 

Whitbread,  S.,  defeats  third  theatre 
project,  235  f.,  238,  241,  243  f. 

White,  6.,  claims  interest  in  "  dor- 
mant patent,"  143;  petitions 
Crown  for  protection  to  share  in 
patent,  220. 

Wilkinson,  Tate,  actor,  306. 

Wilks,  R.,  actor  at  Drury  Lane,  10; 
shareholder  in  patents,  15,  57 ; 
named  in  Steele's  patent,  16;  is 
satirized,  51. 

WiUiam  III,  issues  license  to  Better- 
ton,  8,  422. 

William  IV,  establishes  authority  of 
Chamberlain  to  license  minors, 
363 ;  extends  licenses  of  minors, 
365  f.,  367;  death  of,  406. 

Williams  and  Forrester,  convicted 
for  violating  Liceneing  Act,  320. 


Williams,  John,  editor  "Dramatic 
Censor,"  compared  with  Aaron 
Hill,  228;  wages  war  on  monopoly, 
228;  opposes  Drury  Lane  Rebuild- 
ing Act,  237. 

Winnington,  Lord,  criticised  by  Pul- 
teny,  64. 

Winston,  purchases  interest  in  Little 
Theatre,  158 ;  manager  of  Totten- 
ham Theatre,  311. 

Winter''s  Tale,  revived  by  Giffard, 
76  71. 

Wood,  alderman,  amends  Bulwer's 
bill,  345. 

Wrench,  compelled  to  close  Strand 
Theatre,  318 ;  supports  Bulwer's 
bill,  348.     See  also  Russell. 

Wright,  Sir  S.,  magistrate,  aids  pat- 
entees against  Palmer,  109. 

Wroughtou,  joint  proprietor  of  Sad- 
ler's Wells,  128. 

Wyatt  and  Farrell,  open  Royal  Pa- 
vilion, 314. 

Wynford,  Lord,  presents  petition 
favoring  Bulwer's  bill,  346. 

Yates,  E.,  defendant  in  contract 
suit,  286;  improves  character  of 
the  Adelphi,  305 ;  aids  actors 
against  Laporte,  378,  n.  2. 

Yates,  Mrs.,  her  acting  of  Grace 
Huntley  praised,  306. 

Yonge,  Sir  W.,  criticised  by  Pul- 
teny,  64. 

York,  Duke  of,  chief  patron  of  Co- 
vent  Garden  Theatre,  4;  secures 
patent  for  Foote,  89. 


(3tbe  RilJcrislDe  prt?^ 

Electrotyped  and  i>rinted  by  H .  O.  Houghton  &=  Co. 
Cambridge,  Mass.,  U.S.A. 


3  1210  00500  3981 


